
Class 
Book 

PRKSENTEI) BY 



THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 
AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



BY 
JAMES MILLER LEAKE 



A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns 

Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

1914 



Baltimore 
1917 



THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM AND THE 
AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 
AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



BY 
JAMES MILLER LEAKE 



A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns 

Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

1914 



Baltimore 
1917 






Copyright 191 7 by 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 



an 

fniversttr 



PRESS OF 

THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY 

LANCASTER. PA. 



CONTENTS 

Pack 

Introduction vii 

Chapter I. Committees of the House of Burgesses ii 
Chapter II. The Committee of Correspondence... 59 

Chapter III. A Comparative Study of the Committee 
of Correspondence of 1773 and the 
Earlier Committee of Correspondence 
of 1759 8 5 

Chapter IV. The Committee of Correspondence and 

the First Continental Congress 133 

Bibliography 149 



INTRODUCTION 

This study of the Virginia committee system in its rela- 
tionship to the American Revolution has been made in the 
main from source material, much of which has been utilized 
by writers who have studied these committees as isolated 
units rather than as parts of a well developed system. The 
author believes that an institutional and historical continu- 
ity runs through the committee system of the Virginia legis- 
lature, and that these committees are connected in a vital 
and intimate way with the so-called revolutionary commit- 
tees of the transition period from colony to commonwealth. 
To show the continuity, to explain the organization of the 
committees of the Virginia House of Burgesses, and to 
show their part in the calling of the first Continental Con- 
gress is the purpose of this study. It was at first intended 
to include the results of an investigation of the so-called 
revolutionary committees (the Virginia Committee of 
Safety and the local committees) ; but any adequate treat- 
ment of these organizations would have carried this study 
far beyond the usual limits of a dissertation. I have fol- 
lowed out the activities of these committees and hope soon 
to publish my findings as a continuation of this study. 

The opening chapters are devoted to the organization of 
the Virginia House of Burgesses and its method of carry- 
ing on the legislative work by means of standing commit- 
tees. Special attention has been given to the committee of 
correspondence, 1 759-1 770, which was chosen for the pur- 
pose of communicating with the colonial agent, and the re- 
lationship existing between this committee and the House 
of Burgesses, as well as the law governing its appointment 
and functions, has been carefully examined. It is this com- 
mittee, I believe, which developed into the committee for 
intercolonial correspondence; and in order to understand 



viii INTRODUCTION 

clearly the relationship of the legislative committees to the 
people at large, the representative system and the election 
laws of the colony have been brought into the discussion. 

A comparison of the committee of correspondence of 
1759, chosen for the purpose of communicating with the 
agent in England, with the committee of correspondence of 
1773, chosen for intercolonial communication and for corre- 
spondence with an agent in England, brings out important 
results. By close examination of the organization, person- 
nel, and activities of these committees I have reached con- 
clusions somewhat different from those long held regarding 
their operation. The continuity of personnel in these com- 
mittees seems to me to be especially significant, and is a 
feature which, so far as I have been able to determine, has 
never before been pointed out. 

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to several friends 
whose assistance has proved invaluable at various stages of 
the work. To them whatever of good there may be in the 
study is largely due, while in no way are they responsible 
for any inaccuracies it may contain. To Professor James 
Curtis Ballagh, formerly of the Johns Hopkins University, 
now of the University of Pennsylvania, and to Professors 
John Martin Vincent and John Holladay Latane of the 
Johns Hopkins University I am especially indebted. The 
study was undertaken at the suggestion of Professor Bal- 
lagh. Not only am I indebted to him for a dissertation sub- 
ject, but without his scholarly suggestions and careful criti- 
cisms in its early stages the work would not have been pos- 
sible. To Professor Vincent I wish to express my grati- 
tude for careful training in research methods and for valu- 
able assistance at various stages of the work. To Professor 
Latane, under whose direction and in whose seminary the 
study was completed, I am under many obligations. It is 
no less a pleasure because it is also a duty to thank him for 
cheerful assistance, scholarly direction, and helpful criti- 
cism, which have proved well-nigh invaluable. 

In the collection of material I have been aided and my 



INTRODUCTION IX 

labors have been greatly lightened by the courtesy and kind- 
ness of the staffs of the various libraries in which I have 
worked. To Mr. Gaillard Hunt and Mr. J. C. Fitzpatrick 
of the Library of Congress, to Mr. W. G. Stanard of the 
Virginia Historical Society, to Dr. H. R. Mcllwaine, Dr. 
H. J. Eckenrode, and Mr. Earl G. Swem of the Virginia 
State Library I am very grateful for courtesies extended to 
me during my work in their respective libraries. 

J. M. L. 



THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM AND 
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 



CHAPTER I 

Committees of the House of Burgesses 

That the Virginia House of Burgesses, the first legisla- 
tive assembly to meet in America, should have transacted 
business along lines of procedure similar to, if not identical 
with, those followed in the British House of Commons be- 
fore the development of the cabinet or ministerial form of 
government, is not at all strange. Virginia was first settled 
almost entirely by British people, and it is only natural that 
they should have brought with them to America a deep love 
for the mother-country and for her institutions. When 
Governor Yeardley, in June, 1619, summoned the Assem- 
bly to its first meeting, he called together a body of men 
who had no legislative precedents to follow save those de- 
rived from English parliamentary procedure. In its gov- 
ernmental institutions the infant colony was largely in- 
fluenced by English experience, throughout its various 
branches of government English institutions served as 
models, and it was upon an English basis that the structure 
of colonial government was built. However, these English 
institutions were soon modified to meet colonial needs, and 
gradually there grew up in the Virginia House of Burgesses 
a committee system of legislative procedure that has en- 
tered into the very warp and woof of our governmental 
fabric. A system of English legislative committees, trans- 
planted from the mother-country during a long period, took 
on new forms and added importance in legislating for the 
colony, and it has become the very groundwork of the 

11 



12 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

American legislative system. In England the committee 
system gradually narrowed down and lost in importance 
with the rise of the ministerial or cabinet form of govern- 
ment ; in America the same system took on new functions 
and increased in importance, developing into a congressional 
or committee form of government. 

As Virginia was the first colony in America to establish 
a representative legislature, so she was the first to develop 
a system of standing legislative committees for the trans- 
action of business. 1 It is in the development of this system 
that the government of the United States has found its 
most distinctive legislative peculiarity — a peculiarity that has 
given to our congressional system a characteristic individu- 
ality. So important is an understanding of these commit- 
tees to a proper conception of the American Revolution and 
the later establishment of the United States that their rise 
and development in the Virginia House of Burgesses should 
be examined with care. 

The first meeting of the House of Burgesses was held at 
Jamestown, then called James City, July 30, 1619, and a 
record of the proceedings has come down to us in a "re- 
porte" from the speaker, John Pory. 2 This document, 

1 J. F. Jameson, " The Origin of the Standing-Committee System 
in American Legislative Bodies," in Political Science Quarterly, 
vol. ix, pp. 262-263. 

2 This paper is in the British State Paper Office, America and 
West Indies, Virginia, and is endorsed " Mr. Pory owt of Virginia, 
The Proceedings of the First Assembly of Virginia, July, 1619." 
This interesting document was discovered by Mr. George Bancroft 
and published in 1857 in the Collection of the New York Historical 
Society, second series, vol. iii, pp. 329-358, with an introduction by 
Mr. Bancroft. Of its discovery he says: "Having, during a long 
period of years, instituted a very thorough research among the 
papers relating to America in the British State Paper Office, partly 
in person and partly with the assistance of able and intelligent men 
employed in that Department, I have at last been so fortunate as to 
obtain the ' Proceedings of the First Assembly of Virginia.' The 
document is in the form of ' a reporte ' from the Speaker ; and is 
more full and circumstantial than any subsequent journal of early 
legislation in the Ancient Dominion. 

" Many things are noticeable. The Governor and Council sat with 
the Burgesses, and took part in motions and in debates. The Sec- 
retary of the Colony was chosen Speaker, and I am not sure that 
he was a Burgess. This first American Assembly set the precedent 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 1 3 

shows that twenty-two members composed the first Assem- 
bly, that John Pory, the secretary of the colony, was chosen 
speaker, and that John Twine was made clerk. Among 
other business recorded in the proceedings as having been 
transacted was the reading by the speaker of the commis- 
sion for establishing the Council of State and the Assembly. 
The charter which Yeardley had brought out from England 
was read and referred to several committees for examina- 
tion, in order that if they found anything therein "not per- 
fectly squaring with the state of the colony, or any law 
pressing or binding too hard," the Assembly might petition 
for its redress, especially since they looked upon this great 
charter as destined " to bind us and our heirs forever." 
After due inquiry had been made the burgesses from Mar- 
tin's patent were excluded, and the Assembly humbly de- 
manded of the Virginia Company an interpretation of that 
clause in Martin's patent allowing him to enjoy his lands as 
amply as any lord of a manor in England. " The least the 
Assembly can alledge against this clause," said the Burgesses, 
" is, that it is obscure, and that it is a thing impossible for 
us here to know the prerogatives of all the manours of 
Englande." They prayed that the charter clause guaran- 
teeing equal liberties and immunities to grantees might not 
be disregarded, and that the Board " would be pleased to 

of beginning legislation with prayer. It is evident that Virginia 
was then as thoroughly a Church of England colony, as Connec- 
ticut afterwards was a Calvinistic one. The inauguration of legis- 
lative power in the Ancient Dominion preceded the existence of 
negro slavery which we will believe it is destined also to survive. 
The earliest Assembly in the oldest of the original thirteen States, 
at its first session, took measures ' toward the erecting of ' a ' Uni- 
versity and Colledge.' Care was also taken for the education of 
Indian children. Extravagance in dress was not prohibited; but the 
ministers were to profit by a tax on excess in apparel. On the 
whole, the record of these Proceedings will justify the opinion of 
Sir Edward Sandys, that 'they were very well and judiciously car- 
ried.' The different functions of government may have been con- 
founded, and the laws were not framed according to any speculative 
theory; but a perpetual interest attaches to the first elective body 
representing the people of Virginia, more than a year before the 
Mayflower, with the Pilgrims, left the harbor of Southampton, and 
while Virginia was still the only British Colony on the whole con- 
tinent of America." 



14 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

remove any such hindrance " as might " diverte out of the 
true course, the free & publique current of justice." 3 

Certain of the instructions sent out from England were 
" drawn into laws " regulating intercourse and trade with 
the Indians. To pay speaker, clerk, sergeant, and provost- 
martial for their respective services a pound of the best 
tobacco was levied from every male in the colony above 
sixteen years of age. No counties having been laid off at 
this time, representatives were elected from the several 
towns, plantations, and hundreds, styled boroughs ; hence the 
assembly was known as the House of Burgesses and the 
members as burgesses. Even after the division of the col- 
onies into counties these names endured, and up to the for- 
mation of the state government in 1776 they remained in 
common use. 4 

The plan of appointing committees, more or less perma- 
nent, to transact with greater facility the business of a 
legislative body is not an unnatural device, and one is not 
surprised to find this first Virginia Assembly submitting the 
charter to committees. From special committees to do cer- 
tain specific things, after which the committees were dis- 
charged, to permanent standing committees, with wider but 
equally definite functions, was a process of evolution ac- 
complished in the period between 1619 and 1693. In the 
House of Burgesses for the session of December, 1655, we 
find a committee for revising the laws, consisting of a chair- 
man and three members, and a committee for private causes 
composed of a chairman and seven members. 5 In the ses- 
sion of March, 1658, the committee for revising the laws 
presented their work to the Assembly, by whom their re- 
visal was adopted on March 31 of that year. 6 Again in 

3 Collections of the New York Historical Society, second series, 
vol. iii, pp. 334-358; C. Campbell, History of the Colony and An- 
cient Dominion of Virginia, pp. 138-142. 

4 Collections of the New York Historical Society, second series, 
vol. iii, pp. 334-358. 

5 W. W. Hening, The Statutes at Large, vol. 1, pp. 421, 422. 

6 Ibid. Hening quotes from the Randolph MS., p. 238, as follows : 
" This day all the former acts haveing been perused by the com- 
mittee for viewing and regulateing them were by the said coMmittee 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 1 5 

the session of March, 1659, there were named committees 
for private causes and " for review and regulation of the 
Acts, and to make Report of the inconveniences or requi- 
site alterations." 7 From this date down at least as far as 
1680, when the method of appealing to the king in council 
began to be used, are found committees for private causes. 8 

In 1660 the Assembly appointed a " committee of audit," 
whose duty it was to check up the accounts of the " collec- 
tors of two shillings per hhd." This committee was em- 
powered to examine witnesses, administer oaths, and use 
all other legal means to determine the accuracy of such ac- 
counts. 9 In 1661, 1662, and 1663 there were "publique 
committees" appointed to sit for the transaction of busi- 
ness with the governor and the Council during the recess of 
the House. 10 In 1661 the Assembly named Colonel Francis 
Morrison and Henry Randolph, the clerk of the House of 
Burgesses, as a recess committee for a revisal of the laws ; 
and in 1699 there was a joint recess committee, consisting 
of three members of the Council and six burgesses, ap- 
pointed for the same purpose. Six of this committee was 
a quorum, but it was specified that there should be not less 
than two from the Council nor four from the House of 
Burgesses present to constitute such a quorum. 11 

In 1663, just after the system of standing committees in 
the English House of Commons assumed its final form, the 
Virginia House of Burgesses had a committee of elections, 
with functions closely resembling those of the English corn- 
presented to the house, where being read and seriously discussed they 
were approved of in the House and a coMmittee appointed to pre- 
sent them to the Governour and Councill, and to advise with him 
and his councill about the explanation or alteration of any seeming 
difficulties or inconveniencyes, Yet with this lymitation not to 
assent to anything of consequence without the approbation of the 
House." 

7 Hening, vol. i, p. 512. 

8 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 
262-263. 

9 Hening, vol. i, pp. 545, 546. 

10 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 
262, 263 ; Hening, vol. ii, pp. 31, 32, 147, 199. 

"Hening, vol. ii, pp. 34, 311, 312, 313, 314. 



1 6 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

mittee of privileges and returns ; 12 and from a clerk's peti- 
tion of the year 1677 we find that there was in the same 
body a committee of propositions and grievances, whose 
clerk drew a salary of fifty pounds sterling. The same 
committee appears again in 1684. A committee of public 
claims is mentioned in 1677 and again in 1679, 1691, and 
1697. 13 In the single early manuscript journal that has 
been preserved, that of the session of 1693, there appears 
the committee of public claims, along with the committee of 
elections and privileges and the committee of propositions 
and grievances. These three are noted from 1696 to 1698 
as constituting the usual system. 14 

During the session of 1 702-1 703 the journal of the House 
of Burgesses records the appointment of three standing com- 
mittees ; namely, public claims, elections and privileges, and 
propositions and grievances. 15 On March 29, 1703, Messrs. 
Bland, Marable, Ashton, and Turberville, members of the 
House of Burgesses, were named by that body a committee 
to inspect and examine the treasurer's accounts. 16 On 
March 22 it was ordered that each of the standing commit- 
tees "has power to adjourn themselves de die in diem and 
to send for persons records Journalls and other papers " 
which they might have occasion to use. Some idea of the 
importance of these committees may be gathered from the 
fact that the clerk of the House was ordered to post a no- 
tice of their place of meeting. 17 

12 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 
262, 263. 

13 Hening, vol. ii, pp. 405, 421, 455; vol. iii, pp. 43, 44; Jameson, 
The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 262, 263. 

14 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 
262, 263 ; Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1695-1702, 
pp. 4, 6, 45, 47, 58, 61, 120, 123, 133, 142, 182, 208, 212, 248, 341. 

15 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702/3-1712, pp. 6, 9. 

16 Ibid., p. 14. 

17 Ibid., pp. 9, 10. " Ordered That the Clerk of ye House publish 
ye latest time set by ye House for receiving propositions Grievances 
& publick Claims during this Session by Setting up a fair Copy of 
ye Resolve of ye House in that behalfe at ye Colledge door Ordered 
That ye the Clerk of ye House publish the place where ye Comittee 
of Grievances & Propositions, and the Comittee of publick Claims 
are to sitt, vizt in ye upper Rooms of ye Colledge where they for- 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES I 7 

A perusal of the journal for the first session of the As- 
sembly of 1 702/3-1 705 shows that the three standing com- 
mittees of this time — for public claims, consisting of ten 
members ; for propositions and grievances, made up of ten 
members ; and for elections and privileges, with five mem- 
bers — were already performing much of the routine work 
of the House of Burgesses. So important was their work 
that to each was assigned a clerk, whose duty it was to keep 
a record of its proceedings. Their findings were reported 
to the whole house, which considered and voted upon the 
reports. The frequency with which the committee of the 
whole accepted their reports seems to argue well both for 
the effectiveness of their work and for the faith of the 
Burgesses in their committees. Indeed, the cases in which 
their resolutions were rejected or even amended by the 
House seem to be the exceptions to the rule of reliance on 
their good judgment. 

During the general Assembly of 1702/3-1705, with its 
four sessions, that of 1 705-1 706, which had only one ses- 
sion, and that of 1710-1712, of two sessions, the work of 
the committees seems to have undergone little change. In 
all of these sessions, except the one-day session of April 20, 
1704, the shortest ever held by the House of Burgesses, the 
standing committees of elections and privileges, propositions 
and grievances, and public claims were regularly appointed. 18 
As regards the number who served on these committees 
there seems to have been no material variation. During 
these sessions the membership of the committee of elections 
and privileges was never smaller than four nor larger than 
five; the membership of the other two varied between ten 
and twelve. Each of these committees had a chairman and 
a clerk, and their work seems to have been of great impor- 
tance. 

merly sat', by Setting up a Certificate therof at ye Colledge door." 
On account of a fire which had destroyed the state house at James- 
town, October 31, 1698, this session of the Assembly was held in 
the College Hall of William and Mary at Williamsburg. 

18 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702/3-1712, pp. 6, 9, 45, 
46, 88, 89, 132, 241, 242, 303, 304. 



1 8 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Not all of the work of the House of Burgesses, however, 
was done by these committees. We have already noted the 
important recess committees for revising the laws, and one 
cannot fail to be impressed by the vast amount of work ac- 
complished by the revisal committee of 1699 as evidenced 
in the thirty-nine bills reported by it to the General Assem- 
bly, by which they had to be passed before they could take 
the form of acts. 19 While not one of the regular system of 
standing committees, this revisal committee was both a 
standing committee and a recess committee. The work of 
the revisal committee appointed in April, 1699, included only 
the laws passed up to the time of its appointment. The laws 
passed between that date and the session of 1 705-1 706 were, 
however, provided for by order of the House of Burgesses 
which referred them first to the committee of public claims 
and then to the committee of propositions and grievances ; 
and they were revised by these committees just as the older 
laws had been by the committee of revisal. 20 

At the beginning of each General Assembly, as soon as 
the speaker had been chosen, a committee was usually ap- 
pointed to notify the governor, and to find out when it 
would be his pleasure for the House to present their newly 
chosen head. 21 This committee seems to have been a purely 
temporary one appointed to perform a single specific func- 
tion, the performance of which discharged it from further 
duty. Another committee which appeared with great regu- 
larity in most of the sessions is the one for receiving, in- 
specting, and examining the treasurer's accounts — a com- 
mittee whose work was somewhat important if we can 
judge from the regularity of its appointment and the nature 
of the subject with which it had to deal. 22 During all the 
sessions of the General Assembly from 1702 to 171 2, when- 
ever a conference was desired by either the Council or the 
House of Burgesses, the House appointed a committee to 

19 Hening, vol. iii, pp. 181, 182, 183, 184, 185. 

20 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702/3-1712, pp. 189, xxix. 

21 Ibid., pp. 3, 129, 239. 

22 Ibid., pp. 14, 55, no, *37, 255- 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 1 9 

meet with the council committee, in case the conference was 
decided upon. 23 These committee-men from the House 
were termed " Managers " of the conference for the House, 
while the committee-men of the Council were known as 
" Managers " for the Council. However, the House of 
Burgesses could refuse to confer with the Council if in their 
judgment they thought it was the intention of that body to 
make the Burgesses yield in any matter that would estab- 
lish a bad precedent. Especially as regards money measures 
were differences likely to arise ; and here, as in England, 
the Lower House claimed the right to originate all money 
bills, guarding this right jealously whenever it was called 
into question. 24 

In the session of October, 1705, a committee was ap- 
pointed " to Enquire into The practice and Behaviour of 
the Attorney-Generall." This committee, which seems to 
have been very closely akin to the investigating committee 
of modern legislative bodies, was composed of six members, 
with the power of adjourning from day to day and of 
sending for such persons and such records, journals, and 
other papers as they should, from time to time, have occa- 
sion to use in their investigation. 25 The result of their find- 
ings was to be reported to the committee of the whole house. 

In matters that were deemed of sufficient importance the 
House of Burgesses often resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole. In such a matter the procedure was as fol- 
lows : The speaker of the House left his chair and his place 
was taken by the chairman of the committee of the whole 
house. After a discussion of the question in this commit- 
tee, the speaker resumed the chair and the chairman of the 
committee made his report of the proceedings of the com- 
mittee of the whole. As an illustration of this procedure 
the following example will doubtless suffice. On October 
29, 1705, the committee for revision of the laws reported a 
bill which it had prepared entitled " An Act for Establishing 

23 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1 702/3-1 7 12, pp. 24, 91, 113, 
139, 169. 170, 185, 200. 

24 Ibid., pp. 338, 339. 

25 Ibid., p. 140. 



20 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the General Court and for Regulating and Setling the Pro- 
ceedings Therein." This bill was read, and after its first 
reading was referred to a committee of the whole house, a 
day being then set for its consideration. After several post- 
ponements the bill was considered in the committee of the 
whole house on November 15, the chairman, Mr. Peter 
Beverly, reporting from the committee that it had made 
some progress in the said bill, and had directed him to move 
that it have leave to sit again. This leave was granted, 
and on November 17 the House again resolved itself into a 
committee of the whole, from which the bill with several 
amendments was reported to the House of Burgesses, who 
agreed to the changes and passed the bill to its second read- 
ing. 26 Throughout its entire existence the committee of 
the whole house played an important part in the delibera- 
tions of the Virginia House of Burgesses. 

As has been already seen, the first House of Burgesses, 
that of 1619, was composed of twenty-two members. The 
records of the General Assembly of October, 1629, show 
that forty-six burgesses were present at that session, the 
Eastern Shore representatives not appearing. 27 The roster 
of the House of Burgesses for the session of March, 1643, 
shows that the ten Virginia counties were represented by 
twenty-seven burgesses; 28 in the session of November, 1654, 
sixteen counties sent up thirty-eight representatives; 29 in 
March, 1660, seventeen counties furnished forty-four bur- 
gesses. 30 

During the period of 1619 to 1662 there seems to have 
been no regulation of the number of burgesses returnable 
from each county, some counties sending only one repre- 
sentative while others sent two, three, four, five, or even 
as many as six. In the General Assembly of March, 
1662, an act was passed for regulating the number of bur- 

26 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702/3-1712, pp. 138, 141, 
151, 163, 155, 157. 

27 Hening, vol. i, pp. 138, 139. 

28 Ibid., p. 239. 

29 Ibid., pp. 386, 387. 

30 Ibid., pp. 527, 528, 529, 530. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 21 

gesses. 31 The preamble of this act states that it was passed 
because the " charge of assemblyes " was " much augmented 
by the greate numbere of burgesses unnecessary ly chosen 
by the several parishes." In order to correct this difficulty 
it was enacted that no county should send more than two 
burgesses, who should be elected at the county seat of each 
county, but it was provided that James City (Jamestown) 
should be allowed the privilege of electing a member to 
represent it in the House of Burgesses. The last clause 
of the act provided that every county which should lay out 
a settlement of one hundred acres and people it with one 
hundred tithable persons should have the right to elect one 
representative to the Assembly. That this law was not at 
once complied with is indicated by the fact that the counties 
of Charles City, James City, and Isle of Wight each sent 
three representatives to the General Assembly of December, 
1662, while Isle of Wight elected three burgesses to the As- 
sembly of October, 1666. 32 Hening suggests that the ad- 
ditional number of burgesses appearing in the representa- 
tion of the above mentioned counties during these sessions 
was probably due to " the equity not the words of the be- 
fore mentioned act of March, 1661-2." 33 The last clause 
of the act in question seems to conflict with its first provi- 
sion. 

The Assembly of October, 1669, however, passed an act 
which provided for the election of two burgesses to repre- 
sent each county, and each county was enjoined " to returne 
two burgesses for the better service of the publique." 34 It 

31 Hening, vol. ii, p. 106. 

32 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 196, 197, 249, 250. 

33 Ibid., p. 196. 

34 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 272, 273. The text of the act is as follows : 
" Whereas severall inconveniencies have arisen by the act giveing 
liberty to the counties to chose one or two burgesses at discretion 
as the retarding the business at the house when those single bur- 
gesses are upon committees, or of any suite of their owne, or differ- 
ence between diverse parishes of the counties, or have their appear- 
ance hindred by sickness or otherwise, in all which occasions the 
county that sends, or parte of it are deprived of their representative, 
// is enacted that each county after this present session shalbe en- 
joyned to returne two burgesses for the better service of the pub- 
lique." 



2 2 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

is interesting to note that as early as 1669 committee duties 
are urged as a reason for the presence of a full representa- 
tion of every county in the House of Burgesses. That the 
problem of securing a full and regular representation of 
each county in the House of Burgesses was still a live issue 
in the session of the General Assembly of October, 1670, is 
evidenced by the passage of the following act : " Whereas 
the act for electing two burgesses for each county for want 
of a ffine hath not had the due observance it ought, It is en- 
acted that every county not sending to every session of 
assembly two burgesses shall be fined ten thousand pounds 
of tobacco to the use of the publique." 35 By an act of 
March, 1662, all freemen failing to vote in the election of 
burgesses from their county were fined two hundred pounds 
of tobacco. 36 This provision was repeated in all of the acts 
for regulating the election of burgesses passed while Vir- 
ginia was a British colony. 37 

By the beginning of the eighteenth century the counties 
had begun to send up two burgesses with fair regularity, 
and in the General Assemblies of 1 702/3-1 705, 1705-1706, 
and 1710-1712 the roster of the House of Burgesses shows 
twenty-five counties sending up fifty burgesses, while in the 
last mentioned Assemblies Jamestown was represented by 
one burgess. No change appears in the number of bur- 
gesses until the Assembly of 171 5, when the College of Wil- 
liam and Mary was allowed a representative, the roster for 
that year showing twenty-five counties with two burgesses 
apiece, and Jamestown and William and Mary College with 
one each. The number of burgesses remained at that figure 
until the General Assembly of 1 720-1 722, when the repre- 
sentatives of the newly created counties of King George and 
New Kent raised the number from fifty-two to fifty-six. 38 
The General Assembly of 1 727-1 734 appears to have been 

35 Hening, vol. ii, p. 282. 
se Ibid, p. 82. 

37 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 238; vol. vii, pp. 517-530, clause ix. 

38 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1702/3-1712. Lists of 
Burgesses in Introduction ; ibid, pp. vii-xi ; ibid, 1712-1722, pp. 
vii-xiii. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 23 

composed of sixty-five burgesses, of whom sixty-two repre- 
sented thirty-one counties and three the corporations of 
Jamestown, Williamsburg, and William and Mary College ; 
that of 1 734-1 740 seems to have been attended by seventy- 
one burgesses, representing thirty-four counties and four 
corporations, Henrico County appearing to have sent only 
one representative. 39 

By the fourth decade of the eighteenth century the coun- 
ties had usually sent up to the House of Burgesses the num- 
ber of representatives required by the law, and by the middle 
of the century two burgesses for each county were returned 
with great regularity. The General Assembly of i74 2 ~ 
1747 was attended by seventy-six burgesses from thirty- 
eight counties and four corporations, Albemarle, Brunswick, 
Fairfax, and Warwick counties sending only one delegate 
each; and the House of Burgesses in 1748-1749 was com- 
posed of eighty-four members returned by forty counties 
and four corporations, 40 each county having elected two rep- 
resentatives and the towns of Norfolk, Jamestown, and 
Williamsburg and the college of William and Mary one each. 

By this time the colony was growing rapidly, new coun- 
ties were being created in the " up country," and with this 
growth of counties not only had the number of burgesses 
increased, but the regularity of their return to the Assembly 
was greater. Both the General Assembly of I75 2_I 755 
and that of 1756-1758 witnessed a Lower House with a re- 
turn of one hundred and four burgesses from fifty counties 
and four corporations, 41 while the House of Burgesses of 
1 758-1 761 was made up of one hundred and six delegates 
from fifty-one counties and the four corporations. 42 

The General Assembly of 1 761-1765, made memorable 
by the passage of the Stamp Act Resolutions introduced by 
Patrick Henry, shows fifty-four counties and four corpora- 
tions represented by one hundred and ten burgesses. 43 Nor- 

39 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, pp. vii-x. 

40 Ibid., 1 742-1 749, pp. vii-x. 

41 Ibid., 1752-1758, pp. vii-x. 

42 Ibid., 1758-1761, pp. vii-x. 

43 Ibid., 1761-1765, pp. 3, 4- 



24 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

folk County did not return any representatives on account 
of a freshet, which washed away the bridges and prevented 
the freeholders from assembling at the county-seat on the 
day named for the election. 44 Sixteen new counties, most 
of them western, had been created in the period between 
1747 and 1765, and it was largely from the frontier and 
" up-country " members that Henry drew his support in the 
hard-won battle for the famous resolutions of 1765. From 
the day of Henry's victory new progressive forces began 
gradually to gain control of the House of Burgesses. 

One hundred and sixteen burgesses from fifty-six coun- 
ties, the towns of Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Norfolk, 
and from the College were returned members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of 1 766-1 769 ; 45 one hundred and twenty 
members from the same towns and corporations and from 
fifty-eight counties appear on the roster of the lower legis- 
lative branch of that of 1770-1772; 46 and one hundred and 
twenty-six burgesses were returned from the sixty-one 
counties and four corporations that went to make up the 
colony of Virginia when her last colonial house of represen- 
tatives was chosen for the General Assembly of 1 773-1 776. 47 

The General Assembly of 1712-1714 held three sessions, 
at each of which the three regular standing committees of 
elections and privileges, public claims, and propositions were 
appointed. There does not appear to have been any ma- 
terial difference in the size of these committees and those 
appointed in the earlier Assemblies. 48 Each was provided 
with a clerk, and their functions seem to have been about 
the same as those exercised in the earlier stages of their 
existence. 

In the last session of this Assembly a committee was ap- 
pointed "to inspect the laws expired and near expiring." 
This committee was a temporary one appointed to perform 
duties which were sometimes performed by one of the stand- 

44 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, p. 18. 

45 Ibid., 1766-1769, pp. 3, 4. 

46 Ibid., 1770-1772, pp. 3, 4. 

47 Ibid., 1773-1776, pp. 3, 4- 

48 Ibid., 1712-1726, pp. 4, 5, 46, 78. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 2 5 

ing committees, and which were after the establishment of 
another standing committee — that for courts of justice — 
gradually to be assumed by it. 49 During this same session 
a committee of four members was appointed by the House 
of Burgesses whose duty it was to apportion the public 
levy, a duty comparable to that devolving upon the finance 
committee of modern legislative bodies. 50 

The session of 1715, which had lasted a little over one 
month when it was dissolved by Governor Spottswood, 
passed only three acts, none of them of very great impor- 
tance; its time was largely taken up by a dispute between 
the House of Burgesses on the one side and the governor 
and the Council on the other. In this dispute feeling ran 
high on either side, and the executive indulged in some 
rather intemperate and ill-timed language toward those 
members of the House whom he deemed recalcitrant. This 
abuse, especially evident in his speech at the closing of the 
Assembly, seems to have been largely unmerited, for exam- 
ination of the disputed questions will convince the unbiased 
student that the Burgesses were acting wholly within their 
rights as representatives of the people. As regards the 
duties and responsibilities of representatives toward their 
constituents, the Burgesses who opposed Governor Spotts- 
wood at this time seem to have held a higher and more ad- 
vanced conception of representation than did either the 
chief executive or his council ; and the main criticism di- 
rected against the offending representatives seems to have 
been the fact that they considered their duties to their con- 
stituents of first importance. 51 

The governor seems to have judged these men by the 
standards of representation then current in England, where 
" rotten boroughs " abounded, and where the people of many 
communities had only a virtual representation in Parliament ; 
the burgesses believed that they were responsible to the con- 

49 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 103. 

50 Ibid., p. 115. 

51 Ibid., pp. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, and 
Introduction to same by Dr. H. R. Mcllwaine, pp. xxix-xxxiii. 



26 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

stituencies who sent them up, and that the Virginia law had 
replaced the older English ideas of virtual representation by 
a system of direct election, in which every freeholder was 
compelled by law to vote. The old order had changed, 
yielding place to the new ; and virtual representation, such 
as the mother-country believed in, had been changed in the 
colony into actual and real representation. In the closing 
part of the executive's address there is a protest against 
ideas of popular representation and an expression of a sen- 
timent always believed in by the privileged classes, — the 
idea that only the classes with property and a great stake in 
affairs should dictate governmental measures. Even today 
this protest of Governor Spottswood has a familiar ring, 
for now as then such views are the rallying cry of privilege. 
In protesting against the measures of the burgesses who had 
opposed him the governor said : 

This body of Gentlemen [the Council], as well as those few among 
you, who have all along dissented from your wild Proceedings [those 
of the burgesses who sided with the governor and the Council], 
must be allowed to have far greater concerns in Virginia, than all 
the Grand Governing Body of your House ; so cannot be Suspected 
of having less at heart, than you, the Interest of the Country: and 
considering their parts and Stations, I must acknowledge them to 
be the best Judges thereof. 

But to be plain with you, the true Interest of your Country, is 
not what you have troubled your heads about; all your proceedings 
have been calculated to Answer the Notions of the ignorant Popu- 
lace ; And if you can excuse your Selves to them, you matter not 
how you stand before God, your Prince, and all judicious men, or 
before any others to whom, you think, you owe not your Elections. 52 

One of the most interesting and exciting cases dealt with 
by the General Assembly at any session during its entire 
existence as a legislative body came up for consideration 
during this session, 53 — the question whether the justice of 
any county could refuse to certify to the Assembly properly 
signed propositions and grievances or public claims. On 
August 4, the second day of the session, two complaints 
were laid before the House of Burgesses ; one complaint 

52 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 170. 

53 Ibid., Introduction, pp. xxx-xxxii. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 2J 

charged the justices of New Kent County with having re- 
fused to certify some propositions and grievances " from 
the County of New Kent Signed by Several of the Inhabi- 
tants of the Said County," which the clerk of the New Kent 
court, who was examined before the whole house touching 
the matter, testified had been refused by the justices of the 
said court. 54 The other complaint was against the justices of 
Richmond County, and grew out of the fact that several 
public claims of that county, which had been presented to 
the House uncertified, were excused on the grounds that the 
said justices had neglected* to meet and hold the court for 
the certification of claims and of propositions and grievances 
as required by the law. 55 

As regards the certification of both public claims and 
propositions and grievances the law was plain and specific. 
The act of Assembly of October, 1705, which was still in 
force, provided that at the time and place of election of bur- 
gesses for each county the sheriff, or in his absence the 
under-sheriff, of the said county should at the door of the 
court-house by public proclamation, three times made be- 
tween the hours of one and three in the afternoon, give no- 
tice of the time appointed for a court to be held for receiv- 
ing and certifying for the next session of the General As- 
sembly the propositions and grievances and the public claims 
of " all and every person or persons within his county." 
It was further provided that these propositions and griev- 
ances or public claims should be signed by the person or 
persons presenting them to the court; and thereupon the 
chief magistrate then present, or the clerk, by the direction 
of the court, was ordered to certify such documents up to 
the General Assembly, sending them to the burgesses of 
the county for presentation to that body. 56 

The act did not give to the justices the power of examin- 
ing propositions, grievances, or public claims for the deter- 
mination of their justice or validity. Their function seems 

54 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 124. 

55 Ibid., pp. 124, 125. 

56 Herring, vol. iii, pp. 245, 246. 



28 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

to have been the purely administrative one of properly cer- 
tifying the papers in question. The work of sifting these 
and determining which should be favorably considered was 
the function of the Assembly, which usually referred such 
business to the standing committees of public claims and of 
propositions and grievances. After the committees had re- 
ported favorably or unfavorably on the documents sub- 
mitted to them by the Assembly, their reports were passed 
on by the House and then sent up to the Council for the 
concurrence of that body. Unless the justices of each 
county certified the public claims and the propositions and 
grievances presented to the court by the individuals of that 
county, there was no way of regularly presenting these 
claims to the General Assembly, and so these matters would 
not receive the attention of the legislature. The House of 
Burgesses acted promptly in the case of the complaints re- 
ferred to above. On the day they were filed it ordered 
that the justices of the County of Richmond, who had neg- 
lected to hold the court for the certification of claims and 
of propositions and grievances, should be prosecuted by the 
attorney-general of the colony for the neglect of these du- 
ties, and that the claims from the County of Richmond 
should " be Referred to the Consideration of the Committee 
for Publick Claims to Examine the Matter thereof and 
Report the Same with their Opinion thereon to the House." 
After the clerk of the county court of New Kent County 
had been called in and examined by the House concerning 
the complaint from that county, it was ordered that the 
offending justices, Messrs. George Keeling, Richard Little- 
page, Thomas Butts, and Alexander Walker, should be sent 
for in custody of the messenger of the House, and the 
speaker was ordered to issue his warrant accordingly. 

On August 9 Richard Littlepage and Alexander Walker, 
who had been arrested by the messenger, were brought be- 
fore the House for examination, after which they were or- 
dered to make " an humble acknowledgment of their error 
at the bar of the House," and then receive the reprimand of 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 29 

the speaker. Mr. Walker acted in accordance with the 
judgment of the Burgesses and was discharged from custody- 
after he had paid the fees, but Mr. Littlepage obstinately 
refused to obey the commands of the House of Burgesses 
and was ordered to be kept in the custody of the messenger. 
On August 12 Mr. Littlepage and Mr. Butts, the latter of 
whom had in the meantime been placed under arrest but 
who had not as yet appeared before the bar of the House, 
made their escape. Upon being informed of their escape 
the House summoned before its bar the messenger who had 
been given the custody of the prisoners. After he had been 
examined he was judged guilty of a misdemeanor and of 
neglect in the execution of his office. Messrs. Littlepage 
and Butts were declared guilty of a " high misdemeanor and 
contempt of the authority" of the House, and it was or- 
dered that they should be pursued and taken again into cus- 
tody. 57 The execution of this order was assigned to a new 
messenger immediately commissioned by the governor. 
When the orders of the House had been communicated to 
Messrs. Littlepage and Butts, both of these gentlemen re- 
fused to give themselves up, saying that the House had no 
authority to send for them. 58 The messenger having in- 
formed the House of the refusal of the two justices to give 
themselves up, that body resolved " That an Humble Ad- 
dress be presented to the Governor that he would be pleased 
to give Such Orders and Directions as his Honour Shall 
think proper and necessary for the bringing of the said 
Littlepage and Butts before this house to Answer for their 
Repeated Contempts of the Authority of this House"; and 
it was ordered that the committee of elections and privileges 
should prepare and bring in the said address. 59 On the 
next day, August 16, Mr. Corbin, chairman of the commit- 
tee of elections and privileges, reported this address, which 
was adopted, signed by the speaker, and sent up to the gov- 

57 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, pp. 130, 131, 
135. 136. 

58 Ibid., Introduction, pp. xxx, 139. 

59 Ibid., p. 139. 



30 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

ernor, the committee of public claims and the committee of 
elections and privileges having been appointed to present it. 
This address asked that the governor support the House by 
taking such steps as he might think proper in bringing be- 
fore that body the recalcitrant justices. 60 

When the address was delivered to Governor Spottswood 
he returned a non-committal answer stating that his con- 
cern for the honor of the House of Burgesses would always 
be equal to their concern for the honor of their country, and 
that the executive power would vindicate the representatives 
of the people " Conformable to the Support they agree to 
afford it." 61 As this reply promised nothing and showed 
the irritation of the governor at the neglect of the House 
to vote, up to this time, the supplies he had asked for the 
assistance of South Carolina, it was resolved to send him a 
second address, asking that he be pleased to issue such im- 
mediate orders as he should deem most effectual for caus- 
ing Littlepage and Butts to appear before its bar. Again 
the committee of elections and privileges was ordered to pre- 
pare the address, which was reported to the House on 
August 18. This second address Dr. Mcllwaine 62 thinks 
was the work of Mr. Clayton, the chairman of the com- 
mittee of propositions and grievances, who was most prob- 
ably asked to prepare it for the committee of elections and 
privileges because he seems to have been the best writer in 
the House. It is a well expressed paper, setting forth in 
excellent language the reasons why His Honor was again 
appealed to, and begging that steps should be taken by the 
executive to preserve to the House its ancient rights and 
privileges, which the contumacy of the two fugitive justices 
threatened to subvert. The address, after being reported to 
the House by the committee of elections and privileges, was 
accepted by that body, transcribed, signed by the speaker, 
and taken to the governor by the committee of elections and 

G0 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 140. 

61 Ibid., p. 142. 

62 Ibid., p. xxxi. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 3 1 

privileges, the committee of public claims, and seven mem- 
bers in addition. 63 

On August 19 Governor Spottswood sent to the House a 
written reply to the second address, his answer showing 
the same irritation that had been displayed in his verbal 
reply to the first address. After stating his sorrow and 
concern at the fact that the House had not yet granted the 
supplies for which he had repeatedly asked, he stated that he 
was ready to assist that body in maintaining its just rights 
and privileges but must be excused from aiding in any of 
its invasions of the royal prerogative, and that it had no 
right to erect itself into a court of judicature for the trial 
of the justices of the peace. 64 On August 20 the House 
took under consideration this written communication, and 
as a result of its deliberations adopted the following reso- 
lutions : 

Resolved That the House have an undoubted Right of Receiving 
hearing and Redressing the Grievances of the Inhabitants of this 
Colony when legally Certified, and that Richard Littlepage and 
Thomas Butts two of the Justices of New Kent County Court at 
a Court held in the said County for Receiving and Certifying the 
Propositions and Grievances of the People and Inhabitants of the 
Said County, their Refusing to Receive and Certify the Proposi- 
tions and Grievances of the People and Inhabitants of the said 
County is Arbitrary and illegal and a Subverting of the Rights and 
Libertys of the People. 

Resolved That this House in sending for Richard Littlepage and 
Thomas Butts two of the Justices of New Kent County Court in 
Custody of the Messenger of this House, for their refusing to Re- 
ceive and Certify the Propositions and Greivances of the People 
and Inhabitants of the said County Did not intend to Invade and 
are of Opinion have not Invaded any part of the Royal Prerogative. 

Resolved That the said Richard Littlepage and 7 homas Butts in 
Disobeying the Orders of this House, Escaping out' of the Custody 
of the Messenger, and Contemning the Authority of this House, are 
Guilty of a great Misdemeanour and Contempt and ought to be 
Punished for the Same. 

Resolved That the said Richard Littlepage and Thomas Butts 
ought to be compelled to appear and Answer their Said Misde- 
meanour and Contempt at the Bar of this House. 

Resolved That a suitable address to the Governor be drawn up 
upon the Said Message. 65 

63 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 144. 

64 Ibid., p. 143. 

65 Ibid., p. 145. 



32 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

In accordance with these resolutions it was ordered that 
the committee of elections and privileges should prepare 
and bring in a suitable address to the governor, and three 
additional members were added to assist in the work. On 
Monday, August 22, this committee reported to the House 
the address that they had drafted, which was read, adopted 
by the House, transcribed, and signed by the speaker, and 
was sent to the governor by the committee that had prepared 
it and nineteen additional members appointed for that 
purpose. 66 The Burgesses reviewed their conduct during 
this session and defended their action on various matters, 
especially as regarded the case of the two justices in ques- 
tion. They protested that they had no desire or intention 
to invade the royal prerogative, nor any desire or claim to 
the privilege of appointing the justices of the peace. It 
seemed to them, however, "that when Justices in Cases 
where they are not Judicial but Ministerial only will As- 
sume a Jurisdiction and by their Judgement Debarr the 
People and their Representatives of the Rightful ways and 
means prescribed by Law for Redressing their Grievances 
by Excluding them from a true Representation thereof. 
We believe that Such Matters do concern the Burgesses in 
Assembly and We rather incline to that Opinion because 
the Law has not made any other Provision in that Case." 

With this address the Council did not agree, claiming in 
a written message sent to the House on August 23 that the 
Burgesses had tried to assume to themselves the entire 
power of hearing and redressing grievances, when in reality 
that power was lodged in the whole General Assembly. 67 
On the next day the House considered this written message 
from the Council, and it was resolved that a written answer 
should be prepared by the committee of propositions and 
grievances. On August 25 Mr. Clayton, the chairman of 
this committee, reported to the House a very dignified reply 
to the Council in which that body was assured that it was 
not the intention of the Burgesses " to attempt to invade any 

66 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, pp. 147, 148. 

67 Ibid., p. 148. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 33 

of the privileges of the upper house," and explaining to the 
councillors how certain propositions and grievances were 
sometimes directed to the House and sometimes not even 
directed at all. The address stated that the Burgesses would 
willingly transmit to the Council all such propositions and 
grievances as it might desire to inspect. This reply was 
presented to the Upper House by the committee of proposi- 
tions and grievances, which had drafted the reply. 68 

In another message to the House, delivered on August 
27, Governor Spottswood maintained that frequently propo- 
sitions and grievances had in the past been received and 
considered by the General Assembly, even though they had 
failed to receive the attestation of the county courts. Such 
uncertified grievances, he pointed out, had been by no means 
barred by the House during this session. If the justices 
were not to use their judgment in distinguishing between 
those propositions and grievances which were baseless and 
those which were just, he saw no reason why they should 
be submitted to the court before they were sent to the 
Assembly. That this was probably the first instance in 
which the House of Burgesses had ever attempted to punish 
justices for presuming to judge of the truth or falsity of 
complaints of this nature was asserted by the governor, who 
declared himself opposed to assisting the Burgesses in mak- 
ing good an assertion of rights and privileges which ex- 
ceeded any claimed by their predecessors. 69 In another 
set of resolutions, adopted on September 2, the members of 
the House asserted that their only motive in following the 
course they had pursued was their desire to support the 
rights and liberties of the people against those who sought 
" to deprive them of the benefit given by law ; " that the 
grievance from New Kent contained nothing false or sedi- 
tious ; that the justices of that county, as the first to refuse 
the certification of such papers, ought to be punished at the 
bar of the House ; and that the governor's refusal to aid 

68 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, pp. 148, 149, 150. 

69 Ibid., pp. 152, 153. 



34 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

in compelling the recalcitrant justices to appear before the 
House denied to that body their "just rights and privi- 
leges." 70 The Council sided with the governor in a long 
message delivered on the last day of the session, and Spotts- 
wood, in a long address 71 delivered just before he dissolved 
the Assembly, went over most of the ground covered by his 
former arguments, but in a less vehement manner than in 
this last remarkable speech. Of this speech Dr. Mcllwaine 
says : " Leaving aside the spirit in which it was conceived, 
the address of the governor made at the close of the session 
gives a good summary of the attempted legislation. This 
speech is, however, bitter, unfair, and insulting to the op- 
ponents of the governor, most, probably all, of whom were 
as honest as the governor himself, and many of whom were 
as sagacious. 

In this session there was an interesting case which illus- 
trates the workings of the committee of elections and privi- 
leges in passing on the election and qualifications of mem- 
bers of the House of Burgesses, that of Messrs. William 
Cole and Cole Diggs, who had been returned as burgesses 
from Warwick County. During their canvass these gentle- 
men had made preelection promises that they would not 
draw any salary if elected burgesses. When these prom- 
ises were reported to the House, the matter was referred to 
the committee of elections and privileges for investigation. 
The result of this investigation was a report declaring that 
the charges against Messrs. Cole and Diggs had been inves- 
tigated and found true. Accordingly these gentlemen were 
declared not duly elected, and the governor was asked to 
issue writs for a new election. At this election these gentle- 
men were returned by their constituents, and their creden- 
tials were this time accepted by the committee of elections 
and privileges, which declared them duly elected. 73 As 
these representatives from Warwick were among the small 

70 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, pp. 159, 160. 

71 Ibid., pp. 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. 

72 Ibid., Introduction, p. xxxiii. 

73 Ibid., pp. 126, 128, 141. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 35 

number of supporters of the governor in the House of Bur- 
gesses, Spottswood seems to have been incensed that the 
House had unseated them, and in his message of August 27, 
above alluded to, he criticized the Burgesses for their ac- 
tion in the matter. The Burgesses in their resolutions of 
September 2 affirmed that they had acted in accordance with 
the laws of the colony for regulating the election of bur- 
gesses. To this the Council replied that there was no law 
in Virginia to prevent a candidate from offering to serve 
without pay, and the governor, in his closing address, com- 
mented in a sarcastic manner on the incident. 74 However, 
in this matter the House of Burgesses was undoubtedly in 
the right, for the law distinctly disabled any one from sit- 
ting as a member who made a gift of money or anything else 
or promised any gift or reward to any "person or persons 
in Particular " or to any " county, Town, or corporation in 
general." As each county at that time paid the salaries of 
its two representatives in the House of Burgesses, the offer 
of service without salary was a promise of reward to the 
county. 75 

During this session the three standing committees were 
as follows : elections and privileges, five members ; public 
claims, twelve members ; and propositions and grievances, 
eleven members. 76 Throughout the session these commit- 
tees were very active in the transaction of the routine busi- 
ness usually assigned to them; in addition, as has already 
been shown, they performed other duties of a special char- 
acter, but in a manner growing out of the nature of their 
relation with the usual work of the committees. 

During the two sessions of 1718 and the two sessions of 
1 720-1 722 the standing committees were regularly ap- 
pointed. On April 23, 1718, the standing committees were 
named, consisting of the committees for elections and privi- 
leges, public claims, and propositions and grievances, with 



74 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, pp. 152, 153, 
159, 160, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. 

75 Hening, vol. iii, p. 243. 

76 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1715, pp. 123, 138. 



36 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

five, eleven, and eleven members respectively. 77 At the 
second session of this Assembly these same standing com- 
mittees were reappointed with substantially the same mem- 
bership, both in number and personnel. 78 

In the first session of 1 720-1 722, the last Assembly to be 
held during the governorship of Spottswood, the usual 
standing committees were appointed on November 3, 1720: 
elections and privileges with five members; public claims, 
eleven members ; and propositions and grievances with thir- 
teen members. At the second session, convened May 9, 
1722, the committees of the former session were revived by 
order of the House of Burgesses. 79 

On May 10, 1723, at the beginning of the first session of 
the Assembly of 1 723-1 726, the three standing committees 
were appointed, and for the first time a statement of the 
functions of each committee follows the list of members. 
Seven members were appointed to the committee of privi- 
leges and elections, 80 and the journal states that "they are 
to meet as often as they find it Necessary and to take into 
their Consideration All such Matters as shall be or may 
come in Question touching Returns Elections and Privileges 
and to report their proceedings with their Opinions therein 
to the House from time to time and the said Committee is 
to have power to Send for Witnesses Persons Papers and 
Records for their Information." Eleven members were 
named as a committee for public claims, " and the said com- 
mittee are to meet and to take into their Consideration all 
matters concerning the public Claims of the Country and 
to report their proceedings with their Opinions therein to 
the House and the said Committee is to have power to Sit 
from day to day and to send for Persons Papers and Rec- 
ords and they are to inspect the Report of the Committee 
for Publick Claims of the last session of Assembly and make 

77 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1718, pp. i75> 176. 

78 Ibid., p. 221. 

79 Ibid., 1720-1722, pp. 251, 230. 

80 Ibid., 1723-1726, p. 361. The first time the name is written 
" privileges and elections." Heretofore the Journals have it " elec- 
tions and privileges." 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES tf 

report to the House of any matter they shall find therein 
necessary to be further Considered this Session." Thirteen 
burgesses were named as the committee for propositions 
and grievances, and it was stated that " they are to meet and 
to take into their Consideration All Propositions and Griev- 
ances wch. shall be Offered to the Assembly and to report 
their proceedings with their Opinions therein to the House 
from time to time And the said Committee is to have power 
to Sit from day to day and to Send for Persons Papers & 
Records." 81 In the second session, which did not meet 
until May, 1726, the standing committees appointed in the 
first session were revived. 82 

During the latter years of Governor Spottswood's incum- 
bency he was on bad terms with the majority of the bur- 
gesses, and in the session of 1718 not only the majority party 
in the House, but several members of the Council seem ac- 
tively to have opposed him. However, things ran more 
smoothly during the last General Assembly held while he 
was governor of Virginia, and whether the pacification that 
had been brought about between the pro-administration and 
anti-administration factions was superficial or not, at least 
there were no violent outbreaks such as had characterized 
the session of 1718. The Assemblies held during the twen- 
ty-two years in which William Gooch held the office of 
lieutenant-governor of the colony were characterized by 
cordial relations between the executive and the people whom 
he had been sent to govern. An examination of the open- 
ing and closing speeches made by Governor Gooch in any 
of the sessions held during his term of office will show 
the good feeling which he had for the members of the House 
of Burgesses, a feeling which seems to have been recipro- 
cated. 

At the first session of 1 727-1734 the standing committees 
of privileges and elections, public claims, and propositions 
and grievances were appointed, consisting of seven, ten, 
and eleven members respectively. The duties of each were 

81 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1723-1726, pp. 361, 362. 

82 Ibid., p. 400. 



38 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

stated, and in addition to its regular work the committee 
of propositions and grievances was ordered "to inspect the 
Journals of the last Session of the last Assembly, and to 
prepare and draw up a State of the Matters then depending 
and undetermined, and the progress that was made therein, 
and to report the same to the House. And they are also 
to examine what laws have expired since the last Session of 
the last Assembly, and to inspect such temporary Laws as 
will expire at the end of this Session of Assembly and Re- 
port the same to the House with their opinions which of 
them are fit to be revived or continued." 83 The assigning 
to the already hard-worked committee of propositions and 
grievances of these duties, which later were given to the 
committee for courts of justice, rendered it the busiest in 
the House, although the smaller committee of privileges 
and elections, with a large number of contested election 
cases in this session, was also an exceedingly busy one. 

In his address at the opening of this session Governor 
Gooch had urged upon the General Assembly the importance 
of " agreeing upon some methods to prevent delaies in the 
Courts of Justice, so very obvious & inconvenient to the 
People in general," and following his recommendation the 
House of Burgesses, on February 10, 1727, appointed a 
committee for courts of justice, consisting of the attorney- 
general as chairman and six other members. The resolu- 
tion appointing this committee states that " they are to sit 
in the Clerk's Office, and to inquire into the methods of 
proceedings in the Courts of Justice and the occasions of the 
delaies therein, and to prepare a Bill for amending the de- 
fects of the Laws now in force relating to the several Courts 
of the Colony, and for the expediting of Business : And the 
Com'ee are to appoint a Clerk to attend them, and to have 
power to send for persons, papers & Records for their in- 
formation." 84 In the second session of this Assembly all 

83 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, pp. 5, 6. See 
pp. 9, 16, for two additions to committee of propositions and griev- 
ances, and p. 18 for an addition to that of privileges and elections. 

84 Ibid., pp. 5, 6, 16, 17. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 39 

of the standing committees of the preceding session were 
revived, namely, privileges and elections, propositions and 
grievances, public claims, and courts of justice; and the con- 
tinuance of the last named along with the three well es- 
tablished and usual standing committees shows that it was 
already considered important enough to be a permanent 
addition to the standing committee system. 85 

The third session was begun May 18, 1734, and on the 
second day the House of Burgesses revived its four stand- 
ing committees as follows : privileges and elections, consist- 
ing of five members ; propositions and grievances, twelve 
members ; courts of justice, twelve members ; and public 
claims, eleven members. 86 These four committees with sub- 
stantially the same membership were revived in the fourth 
and last session, which was called together in August, 1734. 87 
The committee for courts of justice was also instructed to 
inquire " into such Temporary Laws as may be near expir- 
ing after the End of this Session of Assembly ; and report 
their Opinion to the House, which of them are fit to be con- 
tinued." 88 On August 30 the treasurer's accounts were re- 
ferred for examination to the same committee, which was 
ordered to report to the House the balance in the hands of 
the treasurer. 89 Further idea of the importance of the 
newly appointed committee for courts of justice is shown 
by the number of matters referred to it during this session. 

Notwithstanding the stubborn opposition of both the 
Council and Governor Spottswood to the action of the 
House of Burgesses in 171 5 in taking cognizance of justices 
who refused to certify propositions and grievances to the 
General Assembly, it appears that by 1727 its right to repri- 
mand justices who refused to certify petitions or claims 
presented to them according to law was clearly recognized, 
even where the matter of the petition was known to the 
justices to be false. As the House of Burgesses had con- 

85 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, pp. 59, 61. 

86 Ibid., pp. 117, 118. 

87 Ibid., pp. 172, 173, 174. 

88 Ibid., p. 180. 

89 Ibid., p. 183. 



40 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

tended in the case of the New Kent justices in 1715, the 
function of the courts in certifying petitions, claims, and 
propositions and grievances was not a judicial but purely a 
ministerial one. The right of punishing the justices who 
refused to certify such papers was exercised in 1727 in the 
case of James Wallace and Jacob Walker, who were repri- 
manded before the bar of the House, and dismissed from 
custody after paying costs. 90 For similar offences on the 
part of the justices the House exercised the right of inquiry 
and punishment repeatedly during subsequent General As- 
semblies, seemingly without further question on the part of 
either the Upper House or the executive. 

Of the General Assembly of 1 736-1740 there were like- 
wise four sessions, the long ones being as follows : August 5 
to September 22, 1736, November 1 to December 21, 1738, 
and May 22 through June 16, 1740; a short session lasted 
from August 21 to August 29, 1740. The House of Burgesses 
elected to this General Assembly was the largest one that 
had yet represented the colony, being composed of seventy- 
one representatives ; its size probably accounts in part for 
the fact that its standing committees had a larger member- 
ship than at any time previous, although the fact that the 
legislative needs of a rapidly growing colony made the com- 
mittee duties more onerous would also help to account for 
the increase in the size of their membership. When the 
committees were appointed at the opening session, twelve 
members were assigned to the committee of privileges and 
elections, heretofore never larger than from five to seven 
members ; thirteen were named as a committee of public 
claims, usually consisting of about ten members ; while the 
committees of propositions and grievances and of courts of 
justice were composed of eighteen and seventeen members, 
respectively, about double their former membership. 91 

An examination of the journals of the General Assembly 
of 1736-1740 would seem to indicate that a well established 
rule of seniority was applied to these standing commit- 

90 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, p. 17. 

91 Ibid., pp. 244, 245. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 4 1 

tees, as regards the chairman and ranking members of each. 
To make this clear let us examine the revival in the second 
session of the standing committees appointed in the first. 
In the first session the committee of privileges and elections 
had consisted of the following members: Conway (chair- 
man), Robinson, Harrison, Corbin, Randolph, Acrill, Fitz- 
hugh, Waring, McCarty, Walke, Boush, and Burwell. As 
revived in the following session it was composed of Con- 
way (chairman), Harrison, Corbin, Randolph, Fitzhtigh, 
Waring, McCarty, Walke, Burwell, and Allen. It is easy to 
account for the absence of Robinson's name, for that gentle- 
man had succeeded to the speakership upon the death of 
Sir John Randolph, who had been speaker in the first ses- 
sion, and his promotion to the place of presiding officer had 
rendered him ineligible to this committee. William Acrill 
had died before the convening of the second session. Just 
why the name of Boush is missing is not clear. He was 
certainly present at this meeting, but from the fact that on 
December 9 he was allowed to go home for the recovery of 
his health it is a reasonable conjecture that he was excused 
from committee duties on account of sickness. Mr. Bar- 
radall, the attorney-general, who had succeeded Sir John 
Randolph, deceased, as representative of the College, was 
added to this committee. 92 

The members of the claims committee in the first session 
were Blair (chairman), Price, Bowdoin, Harmanson, Sweny, 
Turner, Ball, Beverley, Buckner, Haynes, Eaton, Claiborne, 
and Scarburg. As far as its ranking members were con- 
cerned, this committee as revised in the second session was 
exactly the same, the only change in its personnel being 
below the first six members. The committee for courts of 
justice had the same chairman in both of these sessions, Mr. 
Corbin, and the members serving were substantially the 
same. During the first session Mr. Robinson had been 
chairman of the important committee of propositions and 
grievances, with Mr. Corbin the next in line; Mr. Corbin, 

92 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, pp. 244, 321, 
325, 271. 



42 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

however, was already chairman of the committee for courts 
of justice, and when Mr. Robinson became speaker of the 
House during the second session of this Assembly Mr. 
Fitzhugh, another member of the committee of propositions 
and grievances, was made chairman in Mr. Robinson's 
place. 93 

In the first session of the General Assembly of 1736- 
1740 a standing committee consisting of Messrs. Carter, 
Acrill, Fitzhugh, Harrison, and Waring was appointed " to 
prepare and draw up a State of that Duty, the duty on 
slaves imported into the colony and the several Paiments 
that have been made, with the Amount thereof." 94 It was 
provided with a clerk, and became so important that it 
was revived in the other two long sessions of this General 
Assembly, and in the General Assembly of 1742 it became 
the standing committee of trade, which was made one of 
the regular system of committees. In the three sessions of 
1 736-1 740 this committee consisted of five members, its 
personnel undergoing one change only, Mr. Beverley taking 
the place of Mr. Acrill on the death of the latter. 

In the third session of this General Assembly all of the 
standing committees were revived. Three of the commit- 
tees — privileges and elections, propositions and grievances, 
and the committee appointed to prepare and draw up a 
state of the duty upon slaves, and so on — retained the same 
chairmen, while more recent appointees had risen to the 
head of the other committees. Mr. Barradall, the attorney- 
general, was made chairman of the committee for courts of 
justice, and Mr. Beverley was appointed chairman of the 
committee of public claims. Both of these new committee 
heads seem to have been able and active burgesses, and the 
fact that a newly appointed member like Mr. Barradall 
could so soon rise to the headship of an important com- 
mittee would seem to argue that the seniority rule did not 
bar the way to the rapid rise of an able legislator. How- 
ever, the general rule seems to have been the gradual rise 

93 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, pp. 244, 245, 
321, 322. 

94 Ibid., pp. 250, 322, 394. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 43 

to the leadership of the committee through service on that 
committee. It is also interesting to note that the House of 
Burgesses in this session ordered that seven of the com- 
mittee of propositions and grievances and five of all the 
other committees should constitute a quorum. This marked 
the beginning of a customary regulation of the number of 
committee-men sufficient for the transaction of legislative 
business, and established a precedent for future sessions. 95 

As soon as the General Assembly of 1742-1747 was 
called together for its first session, the House of Burgesses 
elected its speaker and appointed the five regular standing 
committees. 96 To the committee of privileges and elections 
eleven members were assigned, sixteen to the committee for 
courts of justice, nine to the committee of trade, fifteen to 
the committee of public claims, and twenty-eight to the com- 
mittee of propositions and grievances. The number ap- 
pointed to these committees corresponded fairly well to the 
volume of business referred to each of them, as an examina- 
tion of the journal will show. The House, however, did 
not transact all of its business through these standing com- 
mittees, but appointed special committees as the occasion re- 
quired ; and for the discussion of especially important mat- 
ters use was made of the committee of the whole. At this 
session, as had become the custom, the speech of the gov- 
ernor — today this would be called the governor's message — 
was discussed in the committee of the whole, and the con- 
tinuation and improvement of the all-important tobacco law, 
one of the questions brought to their attention by the gover- 
nor, was thus considered many times after the first draft of 
the bill had been submitted to the House by a special com- 
mittee appointed for that purpose. 97 

Among the special committees named the following were 
important, as can be judged by the subjects with which they 
had to deal: the special committee appointed on June 11 to 

93 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1727-1740, p. 394. 

96 Ibid., 1742-1749, pp. 5, 6, 7. 

97 Ibid., pp. 5, 6, 7, 13, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, and Intro- 
duction, p. xv. 



44 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

examine the treasurer's accounts, a similar committee being 
named at each regular session ; the committee chosen on 
June 16 for "proportioning the public levy," a committee 
which appears with great frequency ; and a committee named 
the same day for " examining the inrolled bills," one which 
appears not infrequently in the journals. 98 

During the second session, which convened in Septem- 
ter, 1744, and in the third session, called together in Feb- 
ruary, 1746, the regular standing committees were revived 
with substantially the same membership as in the first ses- 
sion, there being only slight variations in number of mem- 
bers and personnel." In the short session of July, 1746, in 
which none of the regular standing committees were ap- 
pointed, and in that called in March, 1747, in which only 
the committee of privileges and elections was revived, the 
standing committees did not figure very largely. These 
sessions were held to enact emergency legislation, and little 
other business was transacted. 100 

The General Assembly of 1 748-1 749 held only one ses- 
sion, a long one which lasted from October 27 to December 
17, 1748; on that date a recess was taken until March 2, 
1749, when the session was resumed and continued through 
May 11 of the same year. This was an extremely busy 
session, the committee for the revisal of the laws having 
reported their work, and much of the regular routine work 
having been carried over from the short sessions of the 
preceding assembly, — special sessions in which little of the 
regular legislative business was considered. Many of the 
propositions and grievances and public claims that had been 
carried over came up for consideration in this Assembly, and 
these, added to the papers of a similar nature intended for 
the newly chosen Assembly, rendered the work of the com- 

98 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1742-1749, pp. 11, 63. 

99 Ibid., pp. 77, 78, 80, 156, 157. 

100 Ibid., pp. 225, 226, 235, 236. The reasons for calling the spe- 
cial sessions were to raise an appropriation of £4000 to procure men 
for an expedition into Canada, and to consider measures to rebuild 
the capitol of the colony at Williamsburg, it having been destroyed 
by fire. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 45 

mittees of propositions and grievances and of public claims 
unusually heavy. To the committee for courts of justice 
fell a large amount of the extra work connected with the 
consideration and adoption of the report of the committee 
on revisal of the laws. This report was in three parts: 
first, it advised the repeal of twenty-one acts that had be- 
come obsolete, useless, or were otherwise provided for, cit- 
ing the acts in a list following the resolution recommending 
their repeal; second, it recommended that certain other 
laws be allowed to remain in force without amendment, 
naming thirty-six acts to be so treated; and third, it pre- 
sented in the shape of bills for the action of the House the 
other laws then in force, these bills being either a law 
amended or several laws on the same subject consolidated 
into one bill. The first and second recommendations of the 
committee for revisal were at once agreed to, the committee 
for courts of justice being ordered to bring in a bill for the 
repeal of the acts listed in the first section of the report, 
while the acts listed in the second section continued in force 
ipso facto, as their time had not expired. 101 Later in the 
session the House determined to transfer to class one a law 
put by the committee on revisal into class two, and ordered 
the committee for courts of justice to include it in the bill 
for the repeal of the laws that had become useless. 102 

The bill for repealing several acts of Assembly was re- 
ported to the House by the committee for courts of justice 
on May 4, and in a few days passed both houses of the As- 
sembly and received the governor's signature. 103 As the 
bills were presented by the committee of revisal they were 
from time to time introduced into the House to suit the 
convenience of that body. In their passage through the 
House these bills were subjected to the same forms of pro- 
cedure as were other bills; they had to go through three 
readings, were sometimes considered by the committee of 

101 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1742-1749, pp. 277, 278, 
280, 281, xxix, xxx. 

102 Ibid., p. xxix. 

1Q 3 Ibid., pp. 389, 396, 397, 400, 405. 



46 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the whole, were frequently amended, and in some instances 
were refused passage. In their consideration of these bills 
the Council also followed its usual procedure, making 
amendments of its own and when it thought proper reject- 
ing the amendments of the House. There was an enormous 
amount of work connected with the consideration of the 
vast number of bills which the Assembly considered in this 
session ; for besides the eighty-nine bills that finally received 
the executive signature and became law, not a few bills that 
were introduced were thrown out at various stages of the 
legislative procedure. As only permanent and public acts 
had been considered by the committee for revisal of the 
laws, the committee for courts of justice had at this session 
to review all the temporary and private laws to see which 
were about to expire and to recommend the continuance of 
those it deemed necessary. This statement will serve to 
show that the committee for courts of justice was a very 
busy committee when this special function was added to its 
usual duties. 

During this session the various standing committees were 
made up of the following number of members: privileges 
and elections, fourteen ; propositions and grievances, thirty- 
two; public claims, seventeen; courts of justice, eighteen; 
and trade, seven. 104 The small number of the last named 
committee can be accounted for by the fact that there was 
not so much business before its members as came before the 
other older standing committees. As a rule the heavier the 
work of a committee the larger the number of members ap- 
pointed to it; and members were not infrequently added to 
the various committees from time to time during the session 
as an accumulation of business might require. 

Of the General Assembly of 1752-1758 there were eight 
sessions, the first, second, and sixth of which seem to have 
been used for the conduct of regular legislative affairs, 
while the others were shorter special sessions, called in order 
to provide for expeditions against the French and their 

104 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1742-1749, pp. 258, 259. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 47 

Indian allies along the frontier. In each of the regular 
sessions the usual committees were appointed. The stand- 
ing committees of the first session were as follows: privi- 
leges and elections, fourteen members ; propositions and 
grievances, thirty-four members ; public claims, twenty-five 
members; courts of justice, twenty-one members; trade, 
nine members. Eleven members of the committee of propo- 
sitions and grievances and five of any other committee was 
decided on as a quorum for the transaction of business. 105 
The same committees with few material changes in mem- 
bership appear in the second session, having been appointed 
on November 5, 1753 ; and in the sixth session, which began 
May 1, 1755, the five committees were appointed without 
many changes in their personnel. 106 

The third session of this General Assembly was called by 
Dinwiddie on February 14, 1754, although the former ses- 
sion had been prorogued to April of that year. The reason 
of this haste in convening it for another session was the 
report of Major George Washington on his mission to the 
French commander in the disputed territory on the Ohio, 
which had just been received by Governor Dinwiddie. In 
his opening address the governor asked that the Assembly 
vote a supply for the purpose of aiding the king to establish 
his claim to the lands in dispute. In this session the regu- 
lar standing committees were not appointed, the House of 
Burgesses devoting most of its time to the raising of the 
supply for which it had been called together. 107 This sup- 
ply was voted in an " act for the encouragement and protec- 
tion of the settlers upon the Waters of the Mississippi " 
which provided that the treasurer should be empowered to 
borrow £10,000 at six per cent interest, which was to be 
spent in giving protection to the western settlers, and which 
provided for the payment of this borrowed money and the 
interest thereon by placing an additional duty of five per 

105 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, pp. 6, 7. 

106 Ibid., pp. 107, 108, 234, 235, 237. 

107 Ibid., pp. 175, 176, 177 



48 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

cent on slaves imported, and by taxes on vehicles, on licenses 
on ordinaries, and on various legal documents. 108 

To supervise the expenditure of this sum the law named 
a committee of directors who 

shall, from time to time, with the consent and approbation of the 
governor or commander in chief, for the time being, direct and 
appoint how the said money shall be applied, towards the protecting 
and defending of his Majesty's subjects, who are now settled, or 
hereafter shall settle, on the river Mississippi, and that the said 
directors shall, as often as there shall be occasion of money for the 
use of the aforesaid, apply themselves to the governor, or com- 
mander in chief for the time being, to issue out his warrants to the 
said treasurer to pay so much money as shall be wanting for the 
purpose aforesaid, who is hereby required to pay the same accord- 
ingly. 109 

This committee of directors was a joint committee from the 
two legislative branches, which was to serve with the gov- 
ernor in using the fund appropriated in the act. It was a 
standing recess committee which should speak for the legis- 
lature in the use of money raised by it for specific pur- 
poses. Dinwiddie objected to the appointment of this com- 
mittee as an encroachment on the prerogative, as it quite 
probably was ; but the House could plead as a precedent the 
act of 1746 for raising £4000 to be used in the expedition 
against Canada, in which a similar committee had been 
named. 110 The House of Burgesses seemed determined 
that the principle back of the fact that a money bill must 
originate in the House should be broadened to allow the 
agents of the General Assembly supervision over the ex- 
penditure of money raised in the colony. It is significant 
that both the committee appointed in the act of 1746 and 
that named in the act of 1754 were controlled by the House 
of Burgesses. 

The eighth and last session of this General Assembly was 
a short " extra " one. The most interesting act passed was 
the first of the series of acts known as the " Two-Penny 
Acts." This act of 1755, while not far-reaching in its 

108 Hening, vol. vi, pp. 417, 418, 4*9, 4^0. 

i°9 Ibid., p. 418. 

110 Ibid., vol. v, pp. 401, 402, 403, 404. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 49 

effects, led to the passage of other legislation of a similar 
nature, culminating in that of 1758, out of which grew the 
famous "Parsons' Cause." On November 4, 1755, the 
House ordered that " leave be given to bring in a bill for sup- 
plying the deficiencies of the several funds for the protection 
of this Colony against the encroachments and depredations 
of the French and Indians, and for advancing and secur- 
ing the public credit." In the regular manner this bill was 
brought in by the committee appointed to draft it, passed 
by the House, and sent to the Council, which refused its con- 
currence in the measure. On the day of its rejection by 
the Council, Dinwiddie dissolved the Assembly. 111 The 
reasons for his hasty dissolution he has given in his corre- 
spondence. In a letter to Governor Dobbs of North Caro- 
lina he stated that the House wished by means of this bill 
to set up a loan office and to emit £200,000 paper money. 
To the Board of Trade he wrote that the money was to be 
issued for eight years and without proper security ; that he 
had given his assent to the two former issues of paper money 
because the emergency required it in each case and because 
each issue was for a short period and well secured ; the 
issue proposed in this bill would be, he thought, pernicious 
to the credit of the country. He also stated that the mem- 
bers had become very irregular in their attendance on the 
meetings of the House, and that they had begun " again to 
be troublesome and factious." Therefore he had deter- 
mined to dissolve the present Assembly and take his chances 
with a new election. 112 

This new General Assembly, that of 1 756-1 758, met for 
its first session on March 25, 1756, and the session con- 
tinued until May 5. Out of a possible one hundred and 
four members of the House of Burgesses there were pres- 
ent eighty-five. A comparison of its list of members with 

111 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, pp. 328, 329, 
330, 33i., 332. 

112 Ibid., pp. xxiv; The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, 
Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, vol. ii. pp. 266, 269. 
Cited as Dinwiddie Papers. 

4 



50 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

that of the last session of 1752-1755, made by Dr. Mcll- 
waine, 113 shows a change of about thirty-eight per cent in 
the membership of the House. As most of the old leaders 
were returned, it would seem that the change of personnel 
was of no great assistance to the governor, for the House 
of Burgesses insisted on serving the country according to 
its own ideas. At the opening session only one of the usual 
standing committees was appointed — the committee of privi- 
leges and elections 114 — and the House did not take up any 
of the usual business, devoting most of its time to the emer- 
gency legislation for which it had been called together. At 
the second session, which was also a special session, and a 
much shorter one besides, none of the regular standing com- 
mittees were appointed and the regular business was carried 
over. 

In the third session, which convened April 18, I757> tne 
five usual standing committees were appointed : privileges 
and elections, seventeen members ; propositions and griev- 
ances, twenty-eight members ; public claims, sixteen mem- 
bers ; courts of justice, fourteen members ; trade, eleven 
members. It was resolved that eleven of the committee of 
propositions and grievances and five of the other commit- 
tees should be a quorum sufficient for the transaction of 
committee work, and that the " several Clerks to the Com- 
mittees be continued in their respective Offices." 115 This 
was the last session to be held under the incumbency of 
Dinwiddie. He left the colony in January, 1758, and as his 
successor, Francis Fauquier, did not reach the colony until 
the 7th of June the last short session of this Assembly was 
called by the president of the Council, John Blair, who was 
ex-officio governor until the arrival of Governor Fauquier. 
At this session no standing committees were appointed, and 
only emergency legislation to provide supplies and troops 
was passed. 

The General Assembly of 1 758-1 761 held seven sessions. 

113 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, p. xxv. 

1 14 Ibid, p. 338. 

115 Ibid., pp. 417, 418, 419. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 5 I 

At the first of these, that of September-October, 1758, only 
the committee of privileges and elections was appointed, the 
main attention of the Assembly being given to such business 
as was absolutely necessary, and the propositions, griev- 
ances, and claims being referred to the succeeding ses- 
sion. 116 In the second session, which lasted only three days 
and of course transacted only war business, no standing 
committees were appointed. 117 It was not until the third 
session, February 22 to April 14, 1759, that the regular sys- 
tem of committees was again appointed. 118 This was a 
fairly long session, and with the business carried over from 
the preceding sessions, together with the regular business 
of this session, the committees seem to have found much 
work on their hands. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth ses- 
sions, held for short periods in November, 1759, and in 
March and May, 1760, no regular business except that of 
the utmost importance seems to have been transacted and 
no standing committees of the House were appointed. 119 
The postponement of work from these short sessions car- 
ried over considerable business to the seventh session, which 
became the longest up to this time, lasting more than six 
months ; it included a recess period of about one and a half 
months, during which time the Assembly was held over to 
act on the revisal and renewal of the important tobacco law, 
which could not be considered before the regular time for 
the prorogation. Hence the prorogation was changed into 
an adjournment which kept the Assembly in session until 
the business of the general court had been transacted and 
the governor and the Council, who composed that judicial 
body, could join the House of Burgesses in legislative busi- 
ness. 120 Most of the regular business of the session being 
postponed until after the recess, the regular standing com- 
mittees were not appointed until that time. This session 

116 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, pp. 5, 6, 7. 

117 Ibid., pp. 49, 50. 51, 52. 
" 8 Ibid., pp. 57, 58, 59- 

119 Ibid., pp. 133-179. 

120 Ibid., pp. xi, 184, 185. 



52 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

was a busy one, as the thirty-one acts passed will testify. 121 
Governor Fauquier's speech at its closing shows that he 
regarded the House of Burgesses as composed of highly 
capable and honest men. 122 

The first three sessions of the General Assembly of 1761- 
1765 were short ones in which none of the regular stand- 
ing committees were appointed save the committee of privi- 
leges and elections, which was named in the first session. 
It was not until the fourth session, which began in Novem- 
ber, 1762, that all five of the regular standing committees 
were again named. There was a large amount of business 
to be transacted and the committees were very busy, as is 
shown by the fact that most of them were larger than ever 
before. The committees of this session were as follows : 
privileges and elections, Richard Bland, chairman, twelve 
members ; propositions and grievances, Peyton Randolph, 
chairman, thirty members ; public claims, Archibald Cary, 
chairman, eighteen members ; courts of justice, Edmund 
Pendleton, chairman, ten members; and trade, Benjamin 
Harrison, chairman, sixteen members. 123 

In the session of October, 1764, the same committees were 
appointed with the same chairman for each. Their mem- 
bership was greater than in the session just mentioned ; the 
House of Burgesses had grown to be a large body with the 
creation of new counties in the " up country," and the legis- 
lative needs of the growing colony were rapidly multiply- 
ing as the population increased. In this session the com- 
mittees were as follows : privileges and elections, nineteen 
members ; propositions and grievances, forty-three ; public 
claims, twenty-seven; courts of justice, nineteen; and trade, 
ten. 124 

In the session of the General Assembly of 1 766-1 769 the 
standing committees were appointed, and both their size 
and the prominence given them in the transaction of the 

121 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, pp. 199,201,202, 
194, 196, 256, 257. 

122 Ibid., p. 258. 

123 Ibid., 1761-1765, pp. 68, 69, 70. 

124 Ibid., pp. 230, 231. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 53 

legislative business show how great a part they now played 
in the procedure of the Lower House. Already the vast 
bulk of the legislative work — most of the routine duties and 
many special duties — was performed by them. In the ses- 
sion of 1766 the standing committees were: privileges and 
elections, eighteen members, Edmund Pendleton, chairman ; 
propositions and grievances, forty-five members, Richa rd 
Bland, chairman; public claims, twenty-nine members, Ar- 
chibald Cary, chairman ; courts of justice, twenty-three 
members, Richard Henry Lee, chairman ; and trade, six- 
teen members, Benjamin Harrison, chairman. 125 

In the session of 1769 the five regular committees were 
appointed, the same members serving as chairmen who had 
served in the session of 1766. However, another standing 
committee appears in this session, — the committee for re- 
ligion, with Robert Carter Nicholas, the treasurer of the 
colony, at its head. 126 With the growth of dissent and the 
increasing dissatisfaction with the vestries of many of the 
parishes, so many complaints and propositions and griev- 
ances were coming up to the House of Burgesses that an- 
other standing committee was created to consider these peti- 
tions. From its first appearance to the end of the colonial 
period it was continued as one of the regular committee 
system. 

During the next General Assembly no standing commit- 
tees were appointed until February, 1772, when the six 
regular ones were named as follows : privileges and elec- 
tions, twenty-one members, Edmund Pendleton, chairman ; 
propositions and grievances, thirty-two members, Richard 
Bland, chairman ; public claims, eighteen members, Archibald 

125 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 14, 15, 16. 

126 Ibid., pp. 228, 229. Jameson, The Origin of the Standing- 
Committee System, says: "In the memorable session of 1765 a com- 
mittee of religion was added" (p. 263). Dr. Jameson gives as 
authority for this statement the Journals of the House of Burgesses, 
1732-1774. A search through the journals for the year 1765 shows 
that no standing committee for religion was appointed in that year. 
The committee for religion does not appear as a standing committee 
until 1769. After this date the committee seems to have been one 
of the regular system of committees. 



54 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Cary, chairman; courts of justice, sixteen members, John 
Woodson, chairman; trade, nineteen members, Benjamin 
Harrison, chairman ; and religion, twenty-two members, 
Robert Carter Nicholas, chairman. 127 At the session of 
March, 1773, none of the regular standing committees were 
named except the committee of privileges and elections, 
which was headed by the same chairman, and composed of 
practically the same members as in the preceding Assembly. 
It was not until May, 1774, that the regular system of stand- 
ing committees was again named, as follows : privileges 
and elections, twenty-four members, Edmund Pendleton, 
chairman ; propositions and grievances, thirty-seven mem- 
bers, Richard Bland, chairman ; public claims, twelve mem- 
bers, Richard Lee, chairman ; courts of justice, ten mem- 
bers, Richard Henry Lee, chairman; and religion, twenty- 
eight members, Robert Carter Nicholas, chairman. 128 

The last session of the colonial House of Burgesses at 
which the standing committees were appointed was the ses- 
sion of June, 1775, when they were made up of the follow- 
ing members : privileges and elections, twenty-five members, 
Dudley Digges, chairman ; propositions and grievances, 
fifty-six members, Thomas Jefferson, chairman ; public 
claims, twenty members, Archibald Cary, chairman; courts 
of justice, twenty-five members, Joseph Jones, chairman; 
trade, nineteen members, Thomas Nelson, chairman ; re- 
ligion, forty members, Robert Carter Nicholas, chairman. 129 

There is scarcely room to doubt the English origin of the 
system of standing legislative committees, the development 
of which has been traced in the proceedings of the Virginia 
House of Burgesses. In the House of Commons there 
existed for many years a system of standing committees, 
several of which were closely analogous in name and func- 
tion to some of those employed in the Virginia House of 
Burgesses. The prototype of the committee of privileges 
and elections was unquestionably the Commons committee 

127 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1770-1772, pp. 157, 158. 

128 Ibid., 1773-1776, PP- 75, 76. 

129 Ibid., pp. 177, 178, i/9- 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES 55 

of privileges and returns, while the same body had commit- 
tees for courts of justice, grievances, trade, and religion, 
having a close connection in name and function with the 
similar ones of the Virginia Assembly. However, there 
are very marked differences between the standing commit- 
tees in these two legislative bodies of the mother-country 
and her earliest American colony, and these differences 
must be examined with care. 

In his monograph, already cited, Dr. Jameson shows the 
English origin of the system of standing legislative com- 
mittees, which has become one of the characteristic features 
of the American legislative system. While it is not the 
province of this study to examine the development of the 
standing committees in Parliament, a resume of Dr. Jame- 
son's conclusions will help the student to appreciate the dif- 
ferences between the two systems. Beginning with the pro- 
cedure of the House of Commons in the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth, he traces the gradual growth of the system 
through the various Parliaments up to the point of its 
highest development in the Barebone's Parliament of 1653, 
when there were a number of select committees bearing a 
close resemblance to those which we have examined in the 
system of the House of Burgesses. This is the nearest ap- 
proach to a system of select standing committees that one 
notices in the proceedings of the British House of Com- 
mons; for Cromwell's Parliament of 1654, which was a 
more conservative body, soon began to return to the older 
system of larger and more unwieldy committees, usually 
committees of the whole, which the second Parliament of 
the Protectorate completely restored. From the second 
Parliament of Charles II, in 1661, down to the session of 
1832, with scarcely a break, the House of Commons ap- 
pointed at the beginning of each session a number of its 
members, usually from one hundred to three hundred, to be 
a committee of privileges and returns. It also appointed 
committees of the whole house for religion, grievances, 
trade, and courts of justice. After the reign of Charles II 



56 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the committees of the House of Commons did not develop 
beyond the point they had reached in his reign. Indeed, 
they became less and less prominent after this time, and 
their use gradually declined as the cabinet form of govern- 
ment was developed. The story of the committee system 
in the British Parliament after the reign of Charles II is 
one of gradual decline, and one must look to the American 
colonies to see the full development of the system into an 
important factor in government. 130 

New England seems to have played little part in the de- 
velopment of the colonial system of standing legislative com- 
mittees ; this system was worked out in the middle and 
southern colonies, but appeared earliest in Virginia, where, 
as has been seen, it early reached a high state of usefulness 
and had an important share in the legislative procedure. 
Although the history of the standing committee since 1789, 
or from the date of the formation of our federal govern- 
ment, to the time of the virtual completion of the commit- 
tee system in its congressional form in the time of Speaker 
Henry Clay, has been carefully worked out, it was for a 
long time looked upon as a purely American institution, 
and a careful study of the committee system prior to 1789 
had been neglected until the monograph of Dr. Jameson ap- 
peared. This valuable study gives two reasons for this neg- 
lect : ( 1 ) The system, which had been used at an earlier date 
in the House of Commons, having become virtually extinct 
in that body, observers have probably regarded the system 
of American standing legislative committees as a purely 
American invention; (2) As it did not figure to any large 
extent in the colonial legislatures of New England, those 
American historical writers who were New Englanders 
(perhaps a majority of all our contributors to American 
history) have overlooked the fact that the system existed 
prior to 1789. 131 With an imperfect understanding of this 



130 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing-Committee System, pp. 
248-262. 

131 Ibid., pp. 246, 247, 262, 263. 



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF BURGESSES S7 

committee system, which played so important a part in the 
legislative life of the middle and southern colonies, it is 
not hard to understand why the historians of New England 
should have attached an undue amount of importance to 
the local revolutionary committees of Massachusetts. How- 
ever important was the work performed by these committees 
in organizing revolutionary sentiment in the various town- 
ships of Massachusetts and in binding them together in 
resistance of the British, it seems a rather vague historical 
inference to assume that the intercolonial committee of cor- 
respondence was an extension of this system of local com- 
mittees, nor has the writer seen any evidence upon which 
such a claim can reasonably be based. Indeed, it seems far 
more probable that the intercolonial committee of corre- 
spondence was an adaptation to colonial revolutionary needs 
of a committee appointed to communicate with the colonial 
agent — a committee that was well known in the southern 
and middle colonies. An examination of the Virginia com- 
mittees of correspondence, which will be made in the next 
chapter, will give my reasons for looking upon the commit- 
tee appointed for communicating with the agent as the pro- 
totype of the intercolonial committee of 1773. 

Before entering upon that subject, however, it is impor- 
tant that the differences between the standing committees 
in use in the House of Burgesses and the system which 
since the days of Charles II had been falling into disuse in 
the British House of Commons should be examined. It 
will be noticed that though the names and functions of sev- 
eral of the standing committees in the House of Burgesses 
(privileges and elections, propositions and grievances, reli- 
gion, courts of justice, and trade) are similar to those of 
their analogues in the House of Commons, there is a marked 
difference in the size and nature of the committee. Of the 
committees in the British legislative body, all save the com- 
mittee of privileges and returns were committees of the 
whole house. The committee of privileges was a large, un- 
wieldy body composed of from one hundred to three hun- 



58 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

dred members, whereas the standing committees of the 
House of Burgesses were much smaller and more workable 
than their English analogues. Although the standing legis- 
lative committee of the Virginia Assembly was an adapta- 
tion of an English mode of procedure, yet the system was 
not adopted bodily, but was borrowed in part as needs for 
similar committees arose, and was modified to serve the 
legislative needs of the new colony. As the House of Bur- 
gesses increased in size, and as the problems for legislative 
solution multiplied with the growth of the colony, commit- 
tees, modelled after the system of the House of Commons, 
were modified into the system of workable standing com- 
mittees whose activities have already been examined. 

From the first mention of the committee of elections and 
privileges in the House of Burgesses to the appearance of 
the committee of trade is a period of seventy-nine years, 
and it was more than one hundred years from the appear- 
ance of the first of the five traditional standing committees 
of the House of Commons — the committee for elections — 
to the appointment by the House of Burgesses of another 
of the traditional committees, that of religion. It is true, 
moreover, that the House of Burgesses had appointed at 
an early date another standing committee, that of public 
claims, which seems to have had no analogue in the British 
legislative body. However much the system of the House 
of Burgesses may have been modelled upon that of the 
House of Commons — and it was undoubtedly from English 
precedents that most of our governmental ideas came — the 
long period of time during which the standing committees 
were being transplanted to this country and the modifica- 
tions made in them show unquestionably that the system was 
not blindly followed, but was adopted as the need for such 
committees became apparent and modified so as to serve 
these needs. 



CHAPTER II 
The Committee of Correspondence 

Just as Virginia had been the first of the American col- 
onies to establish an assembly, just as she was the first to 
develop a system of legislative standing committees, so she 
was the first to establish a colonial agency in England. 1 It 
is not within the scope of this study to examine the develop- 
ment of the colonial agencies in England; but since the 
maintenance of such agencies resulted in the appointment 
in most of the middle and southern colonies of committees 
of correspondence for instructing the agents and for com- 
municating with them, and since these committees devel- 
oped into important standing and recess committees of the 
general assemblies, which eventually came under the de 
facto control of the lower houses, it is important that the 
rise of the committee of correspondence in Virginia and in 
the southern and middle colonies should be briefly exam- 
ined. 

As early as 1624 Mr. John Pountis, one of the governor's 
Council, was appointed by the governor and the General 
Assembly " to solicite the general cause of the country to 
his Majesty and the counsell," and a special tax of four 
pounds of tobacco was levied on each male inhabitant of 
the colony sixteen years of age toward the charges of his 
voyage to England. 2 In 1674 Secretary Ludwell and Colonel 
Daniel Parke were appointed to negotiate in England for 
the colony " concerning late grants made to certain lords 
patentees," which had greatly alarmed the colonists ; 3 and 

1 E. P. Tanner, " Colonial Agencies in England during the Eight- 
eenth Century," in Political Science Quarterly, vol. xvi, pp. 2.7, 28. 

2 Hening, vol. i, p. 128. 

3 Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 311, 312, 313, 314. These grants were the ex- 
tensive ones made by Charles II to Culpepper and Arlington. 

59 



60 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the negotiations for a new charter which had been pushed 
by these agents were carried on by Francis Morryson, 
Thomas Ludwell, and Robert Smith when they were ap- 
pointed agents for the governor and the General Assembly 
of Virginia. 4 

Provisions for a permanent agency were made about 1686, 
when an agent was appointed to represent the colony as a 
whole ; he acted, however, under the direction of the governor 
and the Council, 5 who were each appointed by the Crown. 
This kind of agency does not seem to have satisfied the 
House of Burgesses, who in the conflicts that arose between 
the legislative and executive branches of the colonial gov- 
ernment wished to have an agent in England who would 
represent them in their disputes, and who should act under 
their orders. Several times in the disputes between the 
House of Burgesses and Governors Spottswood and Din- 
widdie the House sent special agents to England to present 
their side of the disputed matters to the king and his Coun- 
cil and to the various boards of the administration. 
Throughout a long period continued efforts were made by 
the House of Burgesses to secure an agent who should be 
responsible to them alone and entirely under their direction 
and control. 6 This struggle culminated in 1759 with the 
appointment of Edward Montague as agent to represent 
the General Assembly, and he was put under the control 
and direction of a committee of correspondence composed 
of members from both branches of the legislature. This 
committee was a joint standing committee of both legisla- 
tive branches, with authority to act in the recess between 
the legislative sessions in all matters of business with the 
agent, and the law required it to lay all correspondence and 
the record of its proceedings before the General Assembly. 7 
In reality this committee was controlled by the House of 
Burgesses inasmuch as its members constituted a majority 

4 Hening, vol. ii, p. 523. 

5 Dinwiddie Papers, vol. i, p. 37, note. 

6 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, pp. 307, 308, 311, 
3*3- 314. 386, 387, 393, 501, 502, 503. 

7 Hening, vol. vii, pp. 276, 277. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 6 1 

of the committee of correspondence, by means of which the 
lower branch of the legislature could always govern the 
agent and shape his instructions. 

This was the nearest approach to an agency entirely under 
control of the House of Burgesses until March, 1773, when 
a resolution was adopted by that body appointing a commit- 
tee of correspondence, whose duty should be to maintain an 
intercolonial correspondence with the other colonies on mat- 
ters of mutual interest, and to obtain early and authentic 
intelligence of such acts and resolutions of the British Par- 
liament or proceedings of the administration as might re- 
late to or affect the British colonies in America. 8 In order 
to obtain this information the committee of correspondence 
named as its agent in England John Norton, a prominent 
merchant of London, who accepted the position offered him 
and became agent. To carry out its ideas of intercolonial 
correspondence the committee wrote to the other colonies 
asking that similar steps be taken. The system of inter- 
colonial correspondence developed by this means will be 
discussed in another chapter. 

Edwin P. Tanner, in his monograph on the colonial agen- 
cies in England, 9 follows the error made by the editor of 
the Dinwiddie Papers in stating that from the appoint- 
ment of Montague as agent for the General Assembly " there 
were regularly two agents of Virginia, one for the governor 
and council, another for the house, the salaries of both be- 
ing provided for by the general assembly as a whole." 
Now, this is exactly what did not happen ; for Abercrombie 
was retained as agent for the governor and the Council act- 
ing in their executive capacity as his advisers, while Mon- 
tague became the agent, not of the House of Burgesses 
alone, but of the General Assembly, which was made up of 
the two legislative branches — the Council, acting in its legis- 
lative capacity as the upper house, and the House of Bur- 
gesses, the popularly elected branch. A failure to observe 
the triune nature of the functions of the Council, which 

8 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 28, 41. 

9 Tanner, p. 47; Dinwiddie Papers, vol. i, p. 37, note. 



62 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

were executive, legislative, and judicial, may account for 
some of the false conceptions of Virginia's colonial gov- 
ernmental problems. The act of Assembly of I759> which 
named Montague as agent and constituted the joint com- 
mittee of correspondence from both legislative bodies; the 
act of Assembly of 1760, explaining this very point of joint 
legislative control of the agency; the act of Assembly of 
1763 for adding sundry persons to the committee of corre- 
spondence ; and the act of Assembly of 1765, which con- 
tinued the above acts, — all present conclusive evidence that 
the agency was under joint control of both Council and 
Burgesses. 10 

In the southern and in most of the middle colonies the 
agencies of the general assemblies were controlled through 
committees of correspondence similar to that appointed by 
the Virginia legislature. In 1771 the General Assembly of 
North Carolina appointed Henry Eustace McCulloch as 
agent to solicit the affairs of the province, and named mem- 
bers from both branches of the legislature to act as a joint 
committee of correspondence. This committee was com- 
posed of two members of the Council and five members of 
the Assembly. 11 After several special agencies, South Car- 
olina, in 1 721, by an act of the General Assembly, appointed 
Francis Yonge and John Lloyd, members of the Council 
and of the Commons House respectively, as agents of the 
colony. They were to act under " such orders as they 
might receive from the governor, council, and assembly 
before embarkation, and from the committee of correspond- 
ence afterwards." 12 This committee was composed of two 
members from the Council and five from the Lower House, 



10 Hening, vol. vii, pp. 276, 277, 375, 376, 377, 646, 647 ; vol. viii, 

P- IJ 3- 

11 Laws of North Carolina, in State Records of North Carolina, 
vol. xxiii, p. 854. This committee of correspondence consisted of 
Lewis Henry DeRosset and Marmaduke Jones, councillors, and 
Richard Caswell, John Harvey, James Moore, Joseph Montfort, and 
Robert Howe of the Lower House. Of the members of this com- 
mittee three — Howe, Caswell, and Harvey — were members of the 
intercolonial committee of correspondence of 1773. 

12 The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. iii, pp. 146, 147- 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 6$ 

any three of whom should constitute a quorum ; but an ad- 
ditional ordinance added Richard Beresford and John Barn- 
well of the Commons House of the General Assembly to the 
committee and increased the quorum, of whom one at least 
should be a member of the upper legislative branch. 13 The 
committee was ordered by act of Assembly to carry on a 
regular correspondence with the agents, send over the orders 
of the General Assembly, and give such instructions as it 
might think proper when that body was not in session. 
This committee, revived from time to time, lasted until the 
outbreak of the Revolution, when it was utilized by the 
Commons House of Assembly for the purpose of interco- 
lonial correspondence. 14 

The development of the agency for Georgia seems to 
have been very similar to the development of that for 
South Carolina. In 1762 an act was passed by which Wil- 
liam Knox was appointed agent, and a committee of corre- 
spondence, consisting of five members of the Council and 
six members of the Lower House, was constituted to issue 
instructions and maintain a correspondence with him. This 
act was to be in force one year from May i, 1762. 15 This 
agent and the committee of correspondence were continued 
by reenactment of the statute in 1763 16 for a period of one 
year, and in 1764 for a similar period. 17 In 1768 an act of 
Assembly was passed naming Benjamin Franklin agent for 
one year from June of that year, and appointing a joint 
committee of the legislative branches to be a committee of 
correspondence. 18 Some idea of the importance of this 
committee may be got from the provision made by the Gen- 
eral Assembly for salaries to its clerk and messenger. 19 

13 The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. iii, p. 157. For 
an interesting sketch of the development of the colonial agencies of 
South Carolina see W. R. Smith, South Carolina as a Royal Prov- 
ince, pp. 159-170. 

14 Smith, p. 162, note 3. 

15 The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, vol. xviii, pp. 
481, 482, 483. 

le Ibid., pp. 536, 537, 538. 

17 Ibid., pp. 580, 581, 582. 

18 Ibid., vol. xix, part i„ pp. 12, 13, 14. 

19 Ibid., pp. 129, 485. 



64 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Franklin was reappointed agent from June, I77°> to June, 
1 77 1 ; and in November, 1773, he was again appointed agent 
for the term of one year, the committee of correspondence 
being again named in each of these acts constituting him 
agent for the colony. 20 Not only was Franklin reappointed 
agent, but Grey Elliot was named as an alternate to act for 
one year, though only in Franklin's absence. 21 On Sep- 
tember 10, 1773, the Commons House of Georgia named its 
speaker, who was also a member of the committee ap- 
pointed to correspond with the agent, and any five of that 
committee to carry on a correspondence with the other col- 
onies. 22 Here we see the Georgia Assembly utilizing its 
standing committee of correspondence just as had been done 
in South Carolina. 

In the middle colonies the New York agency is the most 
interesting. It came into the hands of the Assembly by 
1748, and it is in this colony that the popular house seems to 
have won a complete victory by gaining exclusive control 
of the regular agency. 23 On April 16, 1716, Secretary 
Popple wrote to Governor Hunter of New York on the 
necessity that each colony should maintain an agent in Eng- 
land, and urged him to use his influence in having an agent 
appointed for that colony. 24 On October 2 of the same 
year he wrote to the Board of Trade informing them that 
the General Assembly had appointed John Chamante agent, 
and inclosing the act of appointment. 25 In February, 1738, 
Lieutenant-Governor Clarke wrote to the Board of Trade 26 

20 Colonial Records of Georgia, vol. xix, pp. 199, 200, 201, 249, 
250, 251, 252. 

21 Ibid., pp. 506, 507, 508. 

22 Ibid., vol. xv, pp. 521-527. 

23 Tanner, p. 43 ; Documents relative to the Colonial History of 
the State of New York, vol. vi, p. 420, Letter from Governor Clinton 
to the Lords of Trade. 

24 Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol. 
v, p. 473, Letter of Secretary William Popple to Governor Hunter. 

25 Ibid., vol. v, pp. 418, 480, Letter from Governor Hunter to the 
Board of Trade. 

26 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 113. This letter says: "They [the Assembly] 
did likewise the last Session pass an Act, empowering themselves 
t'o appoint an Agent independent of a Governour or the Council; 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 65 

that the New York Assembly had attempted to pass a bill 
creating an agency exclusively under the control of the 
Lower House, but that this bill was so amended by the 
Council that it was dropped. In 1748 the Assembly ap- 
pointed an agent, placing him under the direction of a com- 
mittee of correspondence chosen exclusively from the Lower 
House. A letter from Governor Clinton to the Board of 
Trade tells how the measure providing for the agent's sal- 
ary was attached as a rider to the bill for the support of 
the governor, so that the executive assent might not be 
withheld for fear of cutting off the appropriations for the 
maintenance of the government. 27 In 1765 the New York 
Assembly was represented at the Stamp Act Congress by 
its standing committee of correspondence. 28 This is sig- 
nificant; here is the use of a committee of correspondence 
in a congress, which was looked upon as a meeting of com- 
mittees from the colonial assemblies, seven years before 

But the Council, who were not averse to exclude the Governor, 
would not be excluded themselves ; they therefore made those altera- 
tions ; but the Assembly would by no means agree to them, So that 
the bill dropt." 

27 Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol. 
vi, p. 420, Governor Clinton to the Lords of Trade. Concerning 
the appointment of the agent Clinton says : " I am still under the 
necessity of informing Your Lordships that the Assembly of this 
Province continue to encroach upon the powers of the Crown in 
the appointment' of all their Officers, and have lately (among others) 
named one Mr. Charles Agent for the Province without my knowl- 
edge, privity or consent, otherwise than by telling me, they had 
made provision for this Gentleman, being recommended by Sir Peter 
Warren ; and as they inserted his Salary in the Bill which gives my 
support I was obliged either to yield to their method of appointing 
an Agent, or go without my own Appointments. I find that this 
Gentleman is to act for the Assembly independent of the Governor 
& Council, which is to me a very extraordinary proceeding : There- 
fore I humbly move your Lordships, that you'll be pleased not to 
suffer Mr. Charles as Agent of this Colony to prefer any Memorial, 
Representation or Instructions from the Speaker of this Assembly, 
or from a Committee of said Assembly without my concurrence & 
assent thereto signified to your Lordships by letter concerning the 
same." See also Letter from Governor Clinton to the Lords of 
Trade, dated October 20, 1748, in ibid., vol. vi, p. 425. 

28 Journal of the Stamp Act Congress, in Niles' Register, July 25, 
1812. See also H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in 
America, pp. 159-161 ; B. J. Lossing, Seventeen Hundred and Sev- 
enty-six, p. 64. 



66 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the appointment of the local committees of correspondence 
of Massachusetts, which have so often been credited with 
having been the starting-point of the intercolonial commit- 
tees of correspondence of 1773, as far as I have been able to 
determine without any evidence to support the claim. 

In New Jersey the most significant feature of the co- 
lonial agency is that the order of development seems to be 
exactly the reverse of what it was in the other colonies. 
In New Jersey the agency was first established by the 
House ; then a separate agent was employed by the Council ; 
and finally there was a single agent for governor, Council, 
and Assembly. This was a reversal of the usual order, but 
through its majority on the committee of correspondence 
the House never lost practical control. 29 In December, 
1769, the committee of correspondence of the New Jersey 
Assembly wrote to Benjamin Franklin notifying him of 
his appointment as agent to represent the colony in Eng- 
land, and apprising him of the fact that it had been ap- 
pointed a committee to correspond with him. This com- 
mittee was composed of six members of the Assembly ; but 
as the resolutions of the House in which they were consti- 
tuted a committee were duly attested by the governor, there 
does not appear to have been any friction with the executive 
over their appointment. 30 In 1774 the New Jersey com- 
mittee of correspondence, which had been appointed in re- 
sponse to the call of the Virginia House of Burgesses, se- 
lected Franklin, who had been their agent in England, to 
give them information of acts of the English government 
that might affect in any way the liberties of America. 31 

The agency in Pennsylvania seems to have received its 
first impetus from the executive, who in 171 8 took the first 
steps toward establishing it; but his efforts apparently did 
not result in the establishment of a permanent agency. In 
1 73 1 the colony was represented by Ferdinand John Paris, 

29 Tanner, pp. 47, 48. 

30 Archives of the State of New Jersey, first series, vol. x, pp. 135, 
136, 137, 138, 139, Letter from New Jersey committee of correspond- 
ence to Benjamin Franklin, dated December 7, 1769. 

31 J. Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, vol. viii, p. 126. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 67 

who was agent for a number of years. In 1757 Franklin, 
who was leader of the opposition to the proprietors in the 
dispute that had arisen between them arid the people of the 
province over the taxation of the proprietary lands, was sent 
to England as agent to appeal to the Crown. Although the 
British government at first refused to receive him, he even- 
tually obtained a hearing and won a victory that was signal 
and complete. He returned to America in 1760, but was 
again sent to England in 1765 as assembly agent to secure 
the repeal of the stamp tax. The author has been unable 
to find much material bearing on the Pennsylvania agency, 
possibly because of the fact that the agency was main- 
tained somewhat irregularly; but it is certain that in 1774 
the Assembly had a committee of correspondence as a 
medium of communication with the agent, and it was to this 
committee that the duties of intercolonial correspondence 
with the other intercolonial committees of correspondence 
were finally entrusted. Here again, just as in South Caro- 
lina and in Georgia, the already existing committee of cor- 
respondence was made use of as a means of securing united 
action among the colonists. 32 

In the New England colonies the committee of corre- 
spondence does not seem to have played a very large part 
in the communication with the agency. Only in the colony 
of New Hampshire has it been possible to find any record 
of a standing committee of correspondence in connection 
with the colonial agency. On January 18, 1771, a resolu- 
tion was passed by the New Hampshire Assembly appoint- 
ing John Wentworth, the speaker, William Parker, and John 
Sherbourne, with such others as the Council should appoint, 
to be a committee " to write to the agent for this Province 
at the Court of Great Britain." 33 This resolution was con- 



32 T. F. Gordon, The History of Pennsylvania, p. 483. Gordon, 
giving as his authority the " Votes " of the Pennsylvania Assembly, 
says that the duties of a committee of correspondence intercolonial 
for communication with the colonial agent were imposed on the 
standing committee of correspondence, which, in 1774. consisted of 
the following members of the Assembly: Samuel Miles, Thomas 
Mifflin, William Rodman, Isaac Pearson, and John Morton. 

33 New Hampshire, Provincial and State Papers, vol. vii, p. 272. 



68 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

curred in by the Council, which named three of its mem- 
bers to act with the representatives of the House. 3 * It 
may be noted here that when the committee of correspond- 
ence of 1773 was appointed by the New Hampshire Assem- 
bly, the three representatives who were on the committee 
named in 1771 became members of the new one. 

In none of the other New England colonies has it been 
possible to find any mention of the committee of corre- 
spondence as a medium of communication with the colonial 
agent. In Rhode Island and Connecticut both the governor 
and the Council were elected, and they drew their authority 
from the same source as did the Assembly. Here there 
would be no need for a committee of correspondence 35 ,,-^ 
communicate with the agent; for the governor could be 
trusted to look out for the best interests of the colony whose 
people had elected him, and it was to him that the Assembly 
looked to communicate their instructions to the agent and 
to maintain a correspondence with him upon matters of in- 
terest to the welfare of the colony. 36 In the records of 
Rhode Island there is no mention of a committee to com- 
municate with the agent, but in 1764 the Assembly of that 
colony appointed a temporary committee which seems to 
have had much the same objects in view as did the committee 
of correspondence appointed by the Assembly of Virginia in 
1773. On October 8, 1764, this committee addressed letters 
to the speakers of the other colonial Houses of Assembly 
proposing that the sentiments of the various colonies be ob- 
tained regarding the rights of the colonies, and suggesting 
that the colonies unite in a common defence of their liberties. 
It was also suggested that the agents of the several colonies 
should unite in aiding in securing these rights. 37 It is not 



s * New Hampshire, Provincial and State Papers, vol. vii, p. 272. 

35 Tanner, p. 49. 

36 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Planta- 
tions, vol. vi, pp. 368, 484. 486, 491- 571, 593 ; vol. vii, pp. 27, 28, 29, 30, 
31. The act appointing Henry Marchant as joint agent for the col- 
ony of Rhode Island names the governor as the medium of commu- 
nication with the agency. 

87 Sparks, Benjamin Franklin, vol. vii, pp. 264, 265. This letter is 
in part as follows : " We have been appointed a committee by the 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 69 

unlikely that the united action of the colonial agents in secur- 
ing the repeal of the Stamp Act did much to create a spirit 
of colonial solidarity and helped to pave the way for the ac- 
ceptance of Virginia's suggestion in March, 1773. 

In Massachusetts the instructions to the colonial agent 
seem usually to have been prepared by a special joint com- 
mittee appointed for that purpose. These instructions were 
reported to the General Assembly, were adopted by that 
body, after any desired amendments had been made, and 
were sent by the secretary of the colony to the agent. 38 
The letters from the agent were probably considered in the 
same manner by a specially appointed joint committee of 
the Council and the House of Representatives, and this com- 
mittee reported the result of its deliberations to the bodies 
from which its respective members were drawn. These 
were apparently special committees appointed for a specific 
purpose, after the performance of which they were dis- 
charged, and were not permanent standing committees such 
as the southern and middle colonies appointed to correspond 
with their agencies. They were, however, sometimes ap- 
pointed with power to work in the recess of the General 
Court, though apparently this was not generally the case. 39 

General Assembly of the colony of Rhode Island to correspond, 
confer, and consult with any committee or committees that are or 
shall be appointed by any of the British colonies on the continent, 
and, in concert with them, to prepare and form such representations 
of the condition of the colonies, the rights of the inhabitants, and 
the interests of Great Britain, as connected with them, as may be 
most likely to be effectual to remove or alleviate the burdens which 
the colonists at present labor under, and to prevent new ones being 
added. 

"If all the colonies were disposed to enter with spirit into the 
defence of their liberties ; if some method could be hit upon for 
collecting the sentiments of each colony, and for uniting and form- 
ing the substance of them all into one common defence of the 
whole ; and this sent to England, and the several agents directed to 
join together in pushing and pursuing it there, in the properest and 
most effectual manner, it might be the most probable method to 
produce the end aimed at." 

38 The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of 
Massachusetts Bay, vol. xiv (1747-1752), Appendix ix, pp. 572, 697; 
vol. xv (1753-1756), Appendix x, pp. 257, 259, 364; vol. xvi (1757- 
1760), Appendix xi, p. 263. 

39 Ibid., vol. xiv (1747-1752), Appendix ix, p. 697. 



70 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

In 1770 the Massachusetts House of Representatives ap- 
pointed Benjamin Franklin as its agent in England, at the 
same time naming Thomas Cushing, the speaker of the 
House, and James Otis and Samuel Adams as a committee 
to communicate with him. 40 Most of the correspondence, 
however, seems to have been between Franklin and Cush- 
ing. 41 This committee for communicating with the agent 
was an entirely extralegal one, and was so looked upon by 
Governor Hutchinson. It presents a marked contrast to the 
committees of correspondence of the southern and middle col- 
onies, of which the Virginia committee of 1759 is a high type ; 
for these committees were constituted by acts of Assembly 
which had been duly assented to by the executive and had 
become law. In the main, it appears that the committee of 
correspondence in connection with the colonial agency did 
not play either an important or a legally constituted role in 
any of the New England colonies except New Hampshire. 

In passing the act of 1759 42 which created the agency for 
the General Assembly and named the joint committee of that 
body as a committee of correspondence, the Virginia House 
of Burgesses won a victory, though only a partial one. For 
several sessions of the General Assembly it had endeavored 
to secure an agent. In 1755 a bill for appointing an agent 
had been introduced in the House of Burgesses and had 
passed two readings, but after having been amended in the 
committee it was defeated after the third reading. 43 In 
1756 a bill for appointing an agent was prepared and intro- 
duced by the same committee that had prepared the bill at 
the preceding session. This measure passed the House of 
Burgesses but was not concurred in by the Council, and so 

40 T. Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, vol. iii, p. 318; A. H. 
Smyth, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol. v, pp. 283, 284. 

41 Smyth, Benjamin Franklin, vol. v, pp. 292, 317, 363, 350, 391, 
435, 448. Out of the rather extensive correspondence of Franklin 
while he served as agent of the Massachusetts House of Repre- 
sentatives only two letters seem to have been written to the com- 
mittee. 

42 Hening, vol. viii, pp. 276, 277. 

43 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, pp. 307, 308, 
3H> 313, 314. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 7 I 

did not become law. 44 On April 4, 1758, the House of Bur- 
gesses again granted leave that a bill for appointing an agent 
should be introduced, and Charles Carter, Archibald Cary, 
and Richard Bland were appointed a committee to prepare 
it. It passed both branches of the legislature, but did not 
receive the assent of President John Blair of the Council, 
who was at this time acting governor of the colony. 45 Blair 
was apparently unwilling to assume the responsibility of as- 
senting to this measure, which created for the legislative 
branches an agent of their own. In 1759 a bill for creating 
a colonial agent was passed by both houses, received the as- 
sent of Governor Fauquier, and became law. 

One of the most significant things about the new agency 
was the length of the agent's term of office and the tenure 
of the committee of correspondence. The act of 1759 was 
to be in force for seven years from its passage, and it was 
reenacted for a period of five years from the expiration of 
the original act. This gave the agency permanency; and 
because the act appointing the agent and creating the com- 
mittee of correspondence was regularly passed by both legis- 
lative branches and assented to by the executive, it had un- 
questioned legal validity. In none of the other colonies do 
the colonial agents seem to have been appointed for a term 
of over two years, though the terms were sometimes re- 
newed through long periods. In the creation of the commit- 
tee of correspondence and agency of 1759 the House of Bur- 
gesses had legalized a committee and also an agent whom 
through a majority of the committee it might entirely con- 
trol. In a legal manner the Assembly had obtained an in- 
stitution which might lend itself readily to aiding the popu- 
lar branch in any clash between it and the executive. To 
what extent the work of this committee was carried on into 
the revolutionary period will be shown in the next chapter. 

In the creation of this committee the House of Burgesses 
had added another important standing committee to the sys- 
tem that had grown to such importance in its procedure. 

44 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1752-1758, pp. 386, 387, 389, 

390, 393- 

45 Ibid., pp. 501, 502, 503. 



"]2 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

While nominally a joint legislative committee, so completely 
was it under the control of the lower branch that it was, in 
effect, a committee of that body. From a committee, con- 
trolled and dominated by the lower branch of the legislature, 
to a committee with a membership drawn entirely from that 
body is only a short step ; and this step, as we shall see, was 
taken in the establishment of the committee of correspond- 
ence of 1773, on the eve of the American Revolution. 

That the House of Burgesses kept in close touch with its 
committee of correspondence is best shown by the frequency 
with which its correspondence and proceedings were laid 
before that body. It was through a careful consideration 
of its papers that the House of Burgesses was able to know 
what had been done by the committee during the periods 
of recess between the sessions of the General Assembly ; 
and after the establishment of the agency the correspond- 
ence with the agent came up for careful discussion in nearly 
every session of the House of Burgesses. 

It is, however, in their membership that the close connec- 
tion of the committee of 1759 and that of 1773 with the stand- 
ing committees of the House of Burgesses is best evidenced ; 
and strange to say this salient point has received slight at- 
tention from those writers who have examined the com- 
mittee of correspondence. 46 Of the members of the com- 

46 See the two papers by E. I. Miller in the William and Mary 
College Quarterly, " The Virginia Committee of Correspondence, 
1759-1770," vol. xxii, p. 1, and "The Virginia Committee of Corre- 
spondence of 1773-1775," vol. xxii, p. 99. In these papers, which 
were published nearly two years after this study was begun, Mr. 
Miller has reached very different conclusions from those set forth 
in this study. Although Air. Miller has examined some very valua- 
ble sources in the preparation of his papers, he has failed to find 
several important points that a careful search should have clearly 
shown. He has not noted the continuity of the committee system 
of the Virginia House of Burgesses ; he expresses doubt as to the 
expiration of the committee for corresponding with the agent', which 
is clearly evidenced in the Journals of the House of Burgesses and 
in the laws for appointing the agents ; he does not seem to have 
clearly understood the nature of the agency established by the act 
of 1759, that neither the agent nor the committee of correspondence 
was representative of the House of Burgesses alone. It was clearly 
and specifically stated in the act of 1759 that this agent was to rep- 
resent the General Assembly, and the committee of correspondence 
was a joint legislative committee from both House and Council. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE J T, 

mittee of 1759 those from the House of Burgesses were 
John Robinson, Peyton Randolph, Charles Carter, Richard 
Bland, Landon Carter, Benjamin Waller, George Wythe, 
and Robert Carter Nicholas. An examination of the jour- 
nals of the House of Burgesses for a period of ten years 
prior to their appointment to this committee will show that 
most of these men had served as chairman of one or more 
of the prominent standing committees, while all of them had 
served on some of these committees. Surely it is not too 
much to infer that they had demonstrated in their committee 
service their ability and fitness to be appointed to the new 
committee, for which the Burgesses had contended so long, 
and that the qualities for work and leadership that had been 
shown by them on the standing committees were factors in 
their appointment to the membership of the committee for 
corresponding with the newly appointed agent. It seems as 
unlikely that the system of standing committees should have 
had no effect on the committee of correspondence of 1759 
as that the committee of 1759 should have been utterly for- 
gotten in the creation of that of 1773. The continuity of 
personnel would indicate an institutional connection between 
these two committees of correspondence and between them 
and the great system of standing committees of the body 
from which they were appointed. 

Four of the members of the committee of correspondence 
of 1773 — Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, Rich- 
ard Bland, and Dudley Digges — had served on the commit- 
tee for communicating with the agent, Digges having been 
added to the committee in 1763. Of these, Peyton Ran- 
dolph, the speaker of the House at the time of the appoint- 
ment of the committee in 1773, had been attorney-general 
of the colony, special agent to England in 1753, and had 
served as chairman of the committee of privileges and elec- 
tions (1758, 1761), as chairman of the committee of propo- 
sitions and grievances (1762, 1764), and as a member of 
several of the standing committees. Robert Carter Nicholas, 
at that time treasurer of the colony, had served as chair- 



74 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

man of the standing committee of religion from the time of 
its creation in 1769, and as a member of the committee of 
privileges and elections and of propositions and grievances. 
Richard Bland had been chairman of the committee of public 
claims (1758, 1761), chairman of the committee of privi- 
leges and elections (1766, 1769, 1772), and had served as a 
member of the committees for religion and for trade; and 
Dudley Digges had served as a member of the committee of 
religion and of the committee for privileges and elections, 
becoming chairman of the latter in 1775- 

Of the other members of the committee of correspondence 
of 1773, Richard Henry Lee had served as chairman of the 
committee for courts of justice (1766, 1769); Benjamin 
Harrison, as chairman of the committee of trade (1758, 
1761, 1762, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1772), and as a member of the 
committees of religion, privileges and elections, and propo- 
sitions and grievances, and Edmund Pendleton, as chairman 
of the committee for courts of justice (1762, 1764) and of 
privileges and elections (1766, 1769, 1772). Patrick Henry, 
though he had been a member of the Assembly only since 
1765, was a member of the committees of religion, proposi- 
tions and grievances, and privileges and elections ; Archibald 
Cary had served as chairman of the committee of public 
claims (1762, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1772) and as a member of 
the committees of religion, privileges and elections, and 
propositions and grievances ; Thomas Jefferson, who at the 
time of his appointment to this committee of correspondence 
of 1773 was one of the youngest members of the House 
of Burgesses, was a member of the committee of proposi- 
tions and grievances, to the chairmanship of which he rose 
in 1775. Only one member of the committee, Dabney Carr, 
seems not to have served on any of the standing committees. 
He was a new member in the session of 1773, and died be- 
fore another session of the Assembly. Carr was chosen by 
the authors of the resolutions of March 12, 1773, to move 
them in the House of Burgesses, at the request of his 
brother-in-law, Thomas Jefferson, who wished to give the 
new member an opportunity to display his talents. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 75 

It was through their service on the standing committees 
of the House of Burgesses that these members gained a 
thorough training in legislative procedure and developed a 
capacity for constructive statesmanship that made them 
ready to take the lead in the stormy period soon to follow. 
Upon no other basis can the leadership of Virginians in the 
period from 1773 to 1787 be satisfactorily explained. These 
and other members of the House of Burgesses, coming from 
a popular assembly which for many years had been the most 
truly representative body on the continent, were close 
enough to their constituents to know just how far the 
people of the colony were prepared to resist British en- 
croachments and to what extent they could safely assume 
leadership. Moreover, their legislative training and ex- 
perience gave the Virginia delegates in the first Continental 
Congress a leadership in that body which Virginia was to 
retain for many years. 

It was the thoroughly representative character of the 
Virginia House of Burgesses that made its members, 
whether they were sitting as the Assembly or as a convention 
of delegates, feel that they were in deed and in truth the 
representatives of their people, and that these people would 
stand behind them in any action they might take in the rep- 
resentative capacity. In Virginia the problem was not to 
build up a unified sentiment among the people by town- 
meetings and revolutionary propaganda, but to determine 
what measures must be chosen to protect the legislative 
rights of the colony. So thoroughly representative was the 
House of Burgesses that its action seems to have reflected 
almost perfectly the sentiment of the vast majority of the 
colonists. It was this consciousness of the fact that they 
would be supported by the people, whose representatives 
they were, that gave to its members their readiness to take 
decisive action in times of crisis ; while the knowledge on the 
part of the electors that their representatives were close 
enough to the people from whom they were chosen to follow 
those measures best fitted for the preservation of popular 



y6 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

government gave to the people a confidence in their repre- 
sentatives. These conditions seem to have interacted. The 
confidence of the people in their representatives made the 
latter ready to take the initiative in any matter of impor- 
tance, while the fearless activities of the Burgesses en- 
gendered a spirit of trust and confidence in the Virginia 
electorate. This made the House of Burgesses so respon- 
sive to public sentiment that, after the Stamp Act agitation 
in 1765, even such a conservative as Edmund Pendleton dif- 
fered from such radicals as Patrick Henry and the group 
that followed his leadership rather as regarded methods and 
details than on essential principles. 

Thus, throughout the revolutionary period one finds a 
much greater unity of sentiment and a far greater readi- 
ness to take the initiative among the Virginia representa- 
tives than among those of any other colony. In Virginia 
public sentiment was probably as unified in the revolution- 
ary period as is ever the case in a democracy when any great 
radical change is proposed. Certainly in her southern 
neighbors, Georgia and the two Carolinas, the Tory element 
was much larger and more troublesome and aggressive, and 
the few Tories in Virginia were in no measure comparable 
to the large Loyalist element of New York, New Jersey, 
and Pennsylvania, an influential part of the population of 
those colonies. In New England, sentiment does not seem 
to have been united, nor were her leaders as ready for 
action as those in the Old Dominion. In many of the 
colonies, even in Massachusetts, the leader of the more 
northern colonies, the inhabitants seem not to have been so 
ready to take decided action as were the people in Virginia, 
the leader of the more southern provinces. In Massachu- 
setts and in several of the other colonies there were many 
who looked with distrust on Samuel Adams, who led the 
more democratic part of the Massachusetts population, for 
Adams was a man more famous for his talents as a political 
agitator than for his ability as a constructive leader; and 
the richer trading class, much of whose prosperity was gen- 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE "JJ 

erally supposed to be due to an evasion of the revenue laws 
and whose leader was John Hancock, does not seem to have 
been followed with great unanimity by a large number of 
Americans, who felt that these rich tradesmen had " axes to 
grind " in their opposition to Great Britain. This distrust 
of the Massachusetts leaders, especially evident in the meet- 
ings of the early Continental Congresses, made it necessary 
that the initiative in the most important matters should come 
from the Virginia delegates, who had behind them the united 
sentiment of their colony, and whose prominence and im- 
portant position in the affairs of their own province made 
their leadership acceptable to the colonies as a whole. Es- 
pecially in the drafting and adoption of the Declaration of 
Independence was the ability of the Virginia delegates to 
take the initiative of the utmost importance. Nor did the 
Virginia delegates assume this responsibility by taking un- 
warranted action ; the burgesses of the colony, met in con- 
vention, had instructed the delegation to move and support 
such a declaration, and Richard Henry Lee, in accordance 
with these instructions, made the motion that paved the way 
for this great step toward independence. 

The almost f rictionless transition from colony to common- 
wealth testifies to the unity of sentiment in Virginia, so 
far as the inhabitants of the colony and their popularly 
chosen branch of the legislature were concerned. With 
the breakdown of the royal executive power, no revolution- 
ary change came over the legislative branch of the colonial 
government, and no cataclysm separated the House of Bur- 
gesses from its successor, the Virginia legislature. The 
legislative transition was so gradual that it might be termed 
evolutionary rather than revolutionary. No great change 
in the personnel or in the procedure of the House of Bur- 
gesses marks this transition. Before it was known with 
any degree of certainty by the people of the colony to what 
extent the arbitrary actions of Dunmore would be carried, 
but while there were deep suspicions that he would con- 
tinue to dissolve the Assembly unless that body should put 



^8 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the selfish and short-sighted policies of the British Parlia- 
ment before the interests of the colony itself, the burgesses 
were elected in each county, not by any revolutionary or un- 
usual procedure, but by the duly qualified electors voting in 
accordance with the laws that had long governed elections 
in the colony. But the members of the House of Burgesses 
were authorized by their constituents, in the event of the 
governor's refusal to allow them to sit as an assembly, or 
upon any sudden dissolution after they had come together, 
to meet as a convention to consider the legislative needs of 
the colony. To the student of history, who looks beneath 
legal forms for the facts which they so often obscure, the 
action of Lord Dunmore, in his irritating policy of dissolu- 
tion and prorogation of the Virginia Assembly, will seem 
far more revolutionary than the action of the burgesses in 
coming together as a " convention " after his dissolution of 
the Assembly had clearly manifested his intention of 
thwarting any expression of the general will. 

An examination of the proceedings of the Virginia House 
of Burgesses will convince the unbiased student of history 
that, whatever charges might be brought against the mem- 
bers of that body, they could not be justly accused either of 
unfaithfulness or of indifference to the interests of their 
constituents. 47 There is not the shadow of a doubt that 
they were the representatives of the Virginia people in a 
far more real way than the Parliament was at that time rep- 
resentative of the British people. The House of Burgesses 

47 The Official Letters of Alexander Spottswood, in Collections of 
the Virginia Historical Society, vol. ii, p. i. Cited as Spottswood 
Letters. In complaining of the Burgesses elected, the governor 
says : " For the mobb of this country having tryed their own strength 
in the late election, and finding themselves able to carry whom they 
please, have generally chosen representatives of their own class, 
who as their principal Recommendation, have declared their reso- 
lution to raiss no tax on the people, let the occasion be what it will. 
This is owing to a defect in the Constitution, which allows every 
one, tho' but just out of the condition of a servant, and that can 
purchase but half an acre of land, an equal vote with the man of 
best Estate in the country." Dinwiddie says : " I am sorry to find 
them [the Burgesses] very much in a Republican way of thinking, 
and indeed they do not act in a proper constitutional way, but mak- 
ing encroachments on the prerogatives of the crown" (vol. i, p. ioo). 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 79 

during the period of the two decades preceding the actual 
outbreak of the Revolution, whether sitting as a colonial as- 
sembly or as a convention of delegates of the people, was a 
body clearly representative of its constituents. Indeed, 
there seems to have been no doubt in any of their proceed- 
ings from 1765 to 1776 that their action either as a legis- 
lative body or as a convention would be acquiesced in and 
supported by the people whose representatives they were. 
Revolutionary only in so far as parliamentary encroach- 
ment upon the jealously guarded realm of local self-govern- 
ment threw them on the defensive, the members of the 
House of Burgesses were regularly elected representatives, 
just as legally chosen and not a whit more revolutionary in 
1776, at the climax of parliamentary aggression, than in 
1765, when their bitter resistance of the Stamp Act marked 
their opposition to the changes in the English colonial policy 
in its incipiency. 

As we have already seen, the General Assembly of Vir- 
ginia was composed of two houses, the Council and the 
House of Burgesses. The former was appointed by the 
Crown, usually from a number of persons suggested by the 
governor, while the latter was composed of representatives 
elected by the freeholders of the colony. But while the 
Council had legislative functions as the upper house of the 
General Assembly, it had in addition executive duties as an 
advisor to the governor and judicial functions as the gen- 
eral court of the colony. The House of Burgesses, being 
only a legislative body and directly responsible to the people 
who elected it, was looked to by them as the maker of their 
laws and the guardian of their rights. Any fight made 
against the encroachments of Parliament would naturally 
be waged by the House of Burgesses. It was in this body 
that most of the colonial legislation originated, and as the 
volume of legislative work increased, its system of legis- 
lative committees was developed and perfected. All legis- 
lation customarily originated in the Lower House, and 
money bills had to be initiated there, though a bill might be 



80 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

introduced in the Upper House if no appropriation were 
made. Moreover, a bill, after it had passed both branches 
of the legislature, had to receive the assent of the governor 
before it became a law, but even then it might, under cer- 
tain conditions, be disallowed by the Crown. It was to the 
Lower House, as their own elective body, that the people of 
the colony looked for representation; it was here that any 
encroachment by the prerogative upon the charter rights of 
the colony would naturally be opposed. 

In order to determine with any degree of accuracy how 
representative a body the House of Burgesses was, it will 
be necessary to examine both the qualifications of the elec- 
tors and the laws governing the election of its members. If 
it is found that the House of Burgesses was a body repre- 
sentative of the mass of people of the colony, it will be safe 
to assume that the system of committees employed by it was 
used to further the best interests of the colony at large. 
We find that as early as 1619, when the first Assembly was 
called together, the House of Burgesses was an elective 
body, whose members were chosen by the people. 48 From 
this time up to 1670, when a law was passed restricting it, 
the basis of suffrage was universal to freemen. In October, 
1670, it was enacted that " none but freeholders and house- 
keepers who only are answerable to the publique for the 
levies shall hereafter have a voice in the election of any 
burgesses in this country." 49 

The acts of Assembly known as " Bacon's Laws," passed 
by a revolutionary House of Burgesses in the year 1676, 
contain an act repealing that just mentioned and restoring 
the suffrage to its former basis ; that is, all freemen were to 
vote as formerly, together with all freeholders and house- 
keepers. 50 In 1677, after the suppression of Bacon's re- 
bellion, Charles II issued a series of instructions to Gov- 
ernor Berkeley, one article of which ordered him to declare 

48 w. W. Henry, Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and 
Speeches, vol. i, p. 29. 

49 Hening, vol. ii, p. 280. 

50 Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 356, 357- 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 8 I 

all laws passed under Bacon's influence "voyd and null." 51 
In accordance with these instructions, the General Assem- 
bly in April, 1699, some time after the laws passed under 
Bacon's influence had been declared of no effect, enacted an 
election law providing- that only freeholders should vote for 
burgesses. No woman, sole or covert, infant, or Popish 
recusant was allowed to vote ; and the penalty for any per- 
son who voted in an election, when not a qualified voter, 
was a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco for each 
offence. 52 

The General Assembly in 1762 passed an elaborate law 
entitled, "An Act for directing and better regulating the 
elections of Burgesses, for settling their privileges, and for 
ascertaining their allowances." 53 This statute was a care- 
fully drawn piece of legislation in which every detail of the 
method of calling and holding an election was set forth 
with great explicitness. Every safeguard that the law could 
throw around the election of burgesses was provided. The 
qualification for suffrage was that every freeholder could 
vote who did not fall under one of these classes : woman, 
sole or covert ; infant under the age of twenty-one ; recusant, 
convict, or any person convicted in Great Britain or Ire- 
land during the time for which he was transported; free 
negro, mulatto, or Indian. It was provided that every per- 
son who had an 

estate of freehold, for his own life, or the life of another, or other 
greater estate, in at least fifty acres of land, if no settlement be 
made upon it, or twenty-five acres, with a plantation and house 
thereon at least twelve feet square, in his possession, or in the pos- 
session of his tenant or tenants, for term of years, at will or 
sufferance, in the same county where he gives such vote ; and any 
person having such estate in fifty acres of land in one tract unin- 
habited, lying in two or more counties, shall have a right to vote 
in that county only wherein the greater quantity of the said land 
lies, although the same shall not amount to fifty acres in either 
county; and every person possessed of twenty-five acres, with a 
plantation and house thereon as aforesaid, lying in two or more 
counties, shall have a right to vote in that county only where the 

51 Hening, vol. iii, pp. 424, 425. 

52 Ibid., p. 172. 

53 Ibid., vol. vii, pp. 517-530. 
6 



82 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

house shall be ; and every person possessed of a lot, or part of a 
lot, in any city or town, established by act of assembly, with a 
house thereon at least twelve feet square, shall have a right to vote 
at such election. 

This act of 1762 remained in force until 1769, when the 
November session of the Assembly passed an act to take its 
place. 54 The act of 1769 was substantially the same as the 
earlier statute of 1762, differing only in minor details. The 
length of tenure of land, the possession of which carried 
with it the right of suffrage, was reduced from one year to 
six months, this change of tenure requiring changes in the 
form of oaths given by freeholders at the taking of a poll. 
This act also contained a more strict provision against 
bribery and corrupt practices in elections. 

Having seen that during most of the colonial period the 
suffrage in Virginia was limited to freeholders, and that the 
provisions of land tenure constituting freeholding were not 
excessive for a new country, where land was cheap and 
plentiful, we perceive that the basis of suffrage in Virginia 
was much wider than it was in England at a corresponding 
period. It is also evident that, whatever defects the Vir- 
ginia system of representation may have shown, its basis 
was more uniform and it was better regulated by law than 
was the representation in the House of Commons. While 
Parliament was controlled by corrupt and vicious methods, 
by flagrant and notorious bribery, the House of Burgesses 
through its committee of privileges and elections was en- 
forcing strict and uniform election laws. Only in the de- 
cayed town of Jamestown, which was, about the time that 
we are considering, a " pocket-borough " in the hands of 
the Travis and Ambler families, do we find any approach 
to the " rotten borough " so common in England at this 
time. 55 

Having seen that the basis of suffrage was much wider 
than in England, let vis now examine the proportion of those 
having the right of suffrage who appear to have exercised 

54 Hening, vol. viii, p. 306. 

55 H. R. Mcllwaine, Introduction to Journals of the House of 
Burgesses, 1758-1761, p. viii, note 4. 



THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE 83 

the privilege. Campbell estimates the population of Vir- 
ginia in 1756 at approximately 293,000, of whom 120,000 
were negroes. 50 This estimate would leave the white popu- 
lation considerably larger than the black, about 173,000 in 
round numbers. The question in determining the represen- 
tation of the people of the colony in the House of Burgesses 
is what percentage of the white population actually voted for 
members of the Assembly. Dr. McKinley, basing his fig- 
ures on a series of colonial election returns worked up by 
President Lyon G. Tyler, 57 states that almost nine per cent 
of the white population participated in the elections of the 
counties examined, or that one white person in eleven not 
only had the privilege of voting, but actually did perform 
that duty. Since the counties, returns of which are given 
by Dr. Tyler, are all older counties of Eastern Virginia, 
where there was much large landed property, it is probable 
that returns of the upper counties, where the holdings were 
smaller and the people more democratic, would show an ap- 
preciably larger proportion of the population voting than in 
the Tidewater section. However, this statement is only 
a conjecture, as I have not been able to find the returns 
from any of the western counties for this period. A com- 
parison of these figures presented by Dr. Tyler with results 
of work done on Massachusetts returns for a somewhat 
later period by Dr. Jameson 58 and with the poll lists of 

56 Campbell, p. 494. 

57 L. G. Tyler, " Virginians Voting in the Colonial Period," in 
William and Mary College Quarterly, vol. vi, pp. 7-13. From this 
monograph the following figures are tabulated :— 

Election in counties of Year Percentage Voting 

Elizabeth City 1758 8 

King George 1758 10 

Prince William 1741 71^ 

Westmoreland 1741 yi/> 

Westmoreland 1748 10 

Westmoreland 1752 &y 2 

Essex 1761 10 

Essex 1765 10 

Average 8.937 

_ 58 J. F. Jameson, "Did the Fathers Vote? " in New England Maga- 
zine, January, 1890, pp. 484-490. 



84 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

New York City given by Mr. McKinley 59 shows that the 
elective franchise was more widely exercised, and probably 
more widely conferred, in Virginia than in the middle and 
New England colonies. 

Elected by so wide an exercise of the privilege of suf- 
frage, in elections around which the law threw every safe- 
guard, it is not strange that the Virginia House of Bur- 
gesses should have been a body very representative of the 
interests of its constituency. Nor do we wonder that, 
within its hall, there should have developed some of the most 
powerful champions of popular sovereignty that the world 
has known. In this legislative assembly such men as Patrick 
Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Richard 
Bland, George Mason, and George Wythe gained their leg- 
islative experience, and formed those ideas of democracy 
that made them leaders in the advance guard of those who 
contended for constitutional government and represent- 
ative institutions. When one looks at the roll of great 
Americans whose training in politics and government was 
received in the House of Burgesses, he feels that it was 
something more than accident or coincidence which made 
that body the training school of statesmen. Its representa- 
tive character, the high average of its membership, and the 
system of local self-government which it had built up, its 
well-regulated committee system of legislative procedure, — 
all of these help to explain the number of great men who 
went from its hall into the larger leadership of State and 
Nation. 

59 A. E. McKinley, The Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen Eng- 
lish Colonies in America, p. 217. 



CHAPTER III 

A Comparative Study of the Committee of Correspond- 
ence of 1773 and the Earlier Committee of 
Correspondence of 1759 

On March 12, 1773, the Virginia House of Burgesses ap- 
pointed a committee of correspondence consisting of the 
speaker and ten of the leading members of that body. The 
reasons for the appointment of such a committee are given 
in the resolutions passed unanimously by the House of Bur- 
gesses sitting as a committee of the whole house upon the 
state of the colony. 1 The preamble declared that the minds 
of His Majesty's subjects in the colony had been much dis- 
turbed by various rumors and reports of proceedings tend- 
ing to deprive them of their ancient legal and constitutional 
rights, and that the affairs of the colony were frequently 
connected with those of Great Britain and of the neighbor- 
ing colonies, which rendered a communication of sentiments 
necessary ; in order, therefore, to remove the uneasiness, to 
quiet the minds of the people, and to serve other good pur- 
poses mentioned, it was resolved that a standing committee 
of correspondence and inquiry should be appointed. 2 

This committee consisted of the following members: 
Peyton Randolph, the speaker of the House of Burgesses, 
Robert Carter Nicholas, the treasurer of the colony, Richard 
Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund 
Pendleton, Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, 
Archibald Cary, and Thomas Jefferson. Six of these were 
determined upon as a quorum, and it was stated that the 
business of the committee should be to " obtain the most 
early and authentic Intelligence of all such Acts and Resolu- 
tions of the British Parliament, or Proceedings of Admin- 

1 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 28. 

2 Ibid., pp. 23, 41. 

85 



86 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

istration, as may relate to or affect the British Colonies in 
America ; and to keep up and maintain a Correspondence 
and Communication with our Sister Colonies, respecting 
these important Considerations, and the result of such their 
proceedings, from Time to Time, to lay before this House." 

It was further resolved that the committee should be in- 
structed to inform itself at the earliest opportunity " of the 
principles and Authority, on which was constituted a Court 
of Inquiry, said to have been lately held in Rhode Island, 
with Powers to transmit Persons, accused of Offences com- 
mitted in America, to places beyond the Seas, to be tried," 
and that "the Speaker of this House do transmit to the 
Speakers of the different Assemblies on this Continent 
Copies of the said Resolutions and desire that they will lay 
them before their respective Assemblies, and request them, 
to appoint some Person or Persons, of their respective 
Bodies, to communicate, from Time to Time, with the said 
Committee." 3 

This committee, it will at once be noticed, was a legisla- 
tive committee, appointed by the House of Burgesses, the 
popularly elected branch of the Virginia Assembly, from its 
own membership. Furthermore, it was a standing legisla- 
tive committee with power to act in the recess between the 
sessions of Assembly, but it was amenable to the body by 
which it was appointed, and its proceedings and correspond- 
ence had to be laid before the Burgesses at each session. 
Twelve of the British-American colonies responded to Vir- 
ginia's suggestion, and each of them followed her example 
by appointing a committee of correspondence. In each case 
the committee was appointed by the Lower House, and in 
each the speaker was a member of the committee. Each of 
the colonial legislative bodies so responding required the 
committee of correspondence to lay proceedings and cor- 
respondence before it from time to time, and the duties 
assigned the committee were the same as those assigned the 
Virginia committee. This meant that the committee, in 

3 Journals of the House of Burgesses, I773-I776, pp. 28, 41. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1759 &7 

whatever action it might take, must voice the wishes of the 
majority of the body by which it was appointed and to 
which it was responsible for what it might undertake. Such 
a chain of committees of correspondence, appointed by the 
assemblies and amenable to them, could be revolutionary 
only in so far as the bodies to which they belonged were 
revolutionary. However irregular the action of these com- 
mittees may have seemed to the British government, the 
first measures taken by them in opposition to the British 
encroachments on the rights, or supposed rights, of the 
colonial legislatures can hardly with justice be called revo- 
lutionary. Indeed, the measures urged by the committees 
looked forward to a protection of colonial liberties by a 
closer union with the mother-country, — a constitutional 
union, which would guarantee their legislative functions to 
the colonial assemblies. Nevertheless, we shall see how it 
evolved as one of the chief factors in the making of the 
Continental Congress. 

The resolutions of the Virginia House of Burgesses ap- 
pointing the committee of correspondence show that the 
work of the committee lay in two directions. The commit- 
tee was instructed to obtain the earliest and most authentic 
news of the acts of the British Parliament or proceedings of 
the administration relating to or affecting the British colo- 
nies in America. This was its first function ; the other func- 
tion was to keep up and maintain correspondence and com- 
munication with the other American colonies. 4 These two 
functions were of the utmost importance ; for in what was 
taking place in the home government beyond the sea lay the 
danger to American legislative freedom, while concerted 
action on the part of the colonial assemblies might guaran- 
tee the cherished right of internal taxation which they had 
so long enjoyed. Public sentiment in the colonies had not 
ripened yet for a separation from Great Britain, and the 
colonies saw in united action a program which they hoped 
would work out a constitutional union, and which, while it 

4 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 28. 



88 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

protected their rights, would weld them closer to the mother- 
country. Information of what was happening in England 
was important to the colonies ; so too was authentic knowl- 
edge of the occurrences in the colonies themselves. It was 
such information from England and such knowledge of 
colonial affairs that the committee of correspondence was 
created to obtain and to utilize. 

The intercolonial committees of correspondence, as stand- 
ing legislative committees appointed by the lower houses of 
assembly of the respective colonies, can hardly be consid- 
ered extralegal. The Virginia committee of March, 1773, 
which served as a model for the other intercolonial com- 
mittees of correspondence, was but another standing com- 
mittee added to the system already in use in the House of 
Burgesses. These standing committees of privileges and 
elections, propositions and grievances, courts of justice, pub- 
lic claims, trade, and religion had by this time become a per- 
manent part of the legislative machinery of the House of 
Burgesses, and most of the routine work of that body was 
performed by them. 5 

For the institutional prototype of the intercolonial com- 
mittee of correspondence, as well as for the principle un- 
derlying the committee system, one must look back of the 
local revolutionary committee of correspondence of Massa- 
chusetts, which Dr. Edward D. Collins has credited with 
being the model for our committee system and the germ of 
our government. In speaking of this Massachusetts com- 
mittee Dr. Collins says : " It was a mother of committees, 
and these committees, local and intercolonial, worked up the 
war. It initiated measures, and its activities comprehended 
legislative, executive, and judicial functions. It was the 
germ of a government." This statement does not seem to 
be justified by the evidence introduced. 

The functions of the intercolonial committee of corre- 

5 Jameson, The Origin of the Standing Committee System, p. 248. 

6 E. D. Collins. " Committees of Correspondence of the American 
Revolution," in Annual Report of the American Historical Associa- 
tion, 1901, vol. I, p. 247. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 89 

spondence of 1773, as far as its duties in obtaining infor- 
mation from England regarding legislation and acts of ad- 
ministration touching the American colonies were concerned, 
were nearly identical with the work performed by the Vir- 
ginia committee of 1759. This was a joint standing com- 
mittee of the two houses of Assembly, created by them to 
correspond with the agent of the colony in England on all 
matters of interest to the colony. Although the governor 
and the Council, the appointive officers of the Virginia gov- 
ernment, had been represented by an agent in England be- 
fore 1759, the popularly elected branch of the Assembly up 
to this time had no representative there. 

During the administration of Governor Dinwiddie a dis- 
pute had arisen between the House of Burgesses and the 
governor regarding the " Pistole Fee ; " and the Burgesses, 
feeling that Mr. Abercrombie, 7 the agent for the governor 
and the Council, would represent the interests of those who 
employed him and not the interests of the colony as voiced 
by its elective body, had sent a special agent to England to 
represent them in this controversy. This had been a great 
inconvenience and expense to the colony, and had created a 
desire among the members of the Assembly for an agent 
who should represent the legislature of the colony in all mat- 
ters that might come up before the Parliament or the ad- 
ministrative boards in England. 

The Agent's Act was passed by the House of Burgesses 
on March 28, 1759, after having been amended and agreed 
to by the Council ; and on April 5 it received the assent of 
the governor and became a law. 8 By the provisions of this 
act Edward Montague, of the Middle Temple, was ap- 
pointed the agent of the colony, to be at all times 

under the direction of the honorable William Nelson, Thomas Nel- 
son, Philip Grymes, and Peter Randolph, esquires [of the Council] ; 

7 James Abercrombie, agent in England of the governor and the 
Council of Virginia, was a lawyer, and served as judge advocate to 
General St. Clair in 1746. He was agent for North Carolina from 
1748 to 1758, and was also a private agent of Governor Glenn of 
South Carolina. 

8 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, pp. 109, no, 118. 



gO THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

John Robinson, Peyton Randolph, Charles Carter, Richard Bland, 
Landon Carter, Benjamin Waller, George Wythe, and Robert Carter 
Nicholas, esquires [of the House of Burgesses], who are hereby 
declared to be a committee of correspondence, to transmit such 
matters and things to him as shall be committed to their charge by 
the General Assembly; and to receive from him information and 
intelligence of his proceedings, as well in such cases as shall be to 
him intrusted by the said committee, or the major part of them, as 
in every other matter and thing that shall come to his knowledge, 
that may either affect or be for the interest of this colony. 9 

It was further provided that this committee should, when 
required by the Assembly, lay before that body " copies of 
all such letters and instructions as shall be by them sent to 
such agent, and also the originals of all letters by them re- 
ceived from the said agent." Only a majority of the mem- 
bers were authorized to act as a committee, and any mem- 
ber or members less than a majority who should presume 
to enter into a correspondence with the agent repugnant to 
the letters or instructions sent him by the majority should be 
guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to the censure of the 
General Assembly. The remaining clause of the act pro- 
vided for the appointment of a successor in case the present 
agent should die or be for any reason unable to serve ; fixed 
the salary of the agent at five hundred pounds sterling per 
annum ; and specified that the act should continue and be in 
force for a period of seven years from its passage. 10 

The similarity of this committee to the one appointed by 
the House of Burgesses in 1773 is at once apparent. Each 
was a standing legislative committee. Each possessed the 
power to exercise its proper functions in the recess between 
the sessions of the legislature. The proceedings of each 
had to be laid before the body by which it was appointed 
and to which it was amenable. In function and in manner 
of appointment the one bears a close resemblance to the 
other. An examination of their personnel reveals the fact 
that three of the original committee of 1759 — Peyton Ran- 
dolph, Richard Bland, and Robert Carter Nicholas — were 
members of the committee of 1773, while Dudley Digges, 

9 Hening, vol. vii, p. 276. 

10 Ibid., pp. 276-277. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 9 I 

also a member of this committee, had been added to the 
earlier committee in 1763. 11 

To neither of these committees has the local revolutionary 
committee of correspondence, of which the first was ap- 
pointed in Massachusetts in 1772, any points of striking 
resemblance, if we except the fact that the object of all 
three was the writing of letters for a particular purpose. 
These Massachusetts committees were purely local, and, 
important as was their work in advancing the revolution- 
ary movement in the colony of Massachusetts itself, their 
activities were intracolonial rather than intercolonial. They 
appear to be the narrowing down of the principle of corre- 
spondence to meet local needs and effectively to unify public 
opinion within the colony itself. Dr. Collins's attempt to 
make these committees the parent of the wider and more, 
far-reaching movement seems a confusion of ideas. Each 
of the colonies had two tasks to perform in order to enable 
the American provinces successfully to uphold their rights 
against the encroachments of Crown and Parliament. One 
task was to work out unity of sentiment among the people 
of the colony itself — the intracolonial problem, hard or easy 
of solution according to the political organization and the 
feelings of the population on matters of colonial rights. 
The other task, far more difficult on account of the sectional 
feelings and different economic interests of the various 
colonies, was the problem of intercolonial relations — the 
working out of a union among the colonies themselves. 

The method of securing united action within the colony 
itself is a matter for which separate research must be made 
in the records of each colony if any definite and satisfac- 
tory results are to be obtained. In each of the colonies dif- 
ferent problems were constantly arising for solution ; in 
none of them was the situation identical ; and in most of 
them widely dissimilar conditions prevailed. Curiously 
enough, Dr. Collins, after distinguishing between the revo- 
lutionary and the intercolonial committees of correspond- 

11 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, pp. 193-196; 
Hening, vol. vii, pp. 646-647. 



92 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

ence, almost immediately disregards this distinction and 
makes the revolutionary committee the starting-point for a 
committee of an entirely different nature. 

The chief difference between the Virginia committee of 
1579 and that of 1773 is that the former was a joint com- 
mittee chosen from both houses of the General Assembly, 
while the latter was a committee of the House of Burgesses 
alone. The fact that the committee of 1773 was thus chosen 
indicates that in the period of fourteen years since the crea- 
tion of the first committee the Burgesses had realized that a 
committee of correspondence under their sole direction 
would work far more effectively than a joint committee 
from both legislative branches. During this period Eng- 
land's colonial policy had been almost completely changed 
in character. From a loose and ineffective supervision of 
colonial affairs, almost laissez-faire in character, there had 
developed a policy of close and intimate regulation by the 
home government through the medium of its Board of 
Trade. Since 1763 the new imperial policy of the British 
government had been at work, and the result of the attempts 
of Parliament to legislate for the colonies in local matters, 
especially in the field of internal taxation, had been to 
create in their legislative bodies a desire to protect in every 
possible way the rights that they had so long exercised. In 
protecting these cherished rights the committee of corre- 
spondence was a most effective weapon. 

While the committee of 1759 was a joint committee, it 
was virtually under the control of the House of Burgesses; 
for not only did the latter have a majority of the members 
on the committee, but an examination of the proceedings 
and correspondence during the period from 1759 to 1770, 
most of which have come down to us, 12 shows that the select 
committees which prepared the letters to the agent were 

12 The proceedings of the committee of correspondence, 1759- 
1770, are preserved in the Archives Department of the Virginia 
State Library. They have been published in the Virginia Magazine 
of History and Biography, vol. ix, pp. 353-368; vol. x, pp. 337-356; 
vol. xi, pp. 1-25, 131-143- 343-354; vol. xii, pp. 1-14, 157-169. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 93 

in nearly every case composed entirely of the burgess mem- 
bers of the committee. 13 In the cases of which we have 
record where this select committee contained members from 
both bodies we find that in one instance an equal number 
from the Council and the Burgesses was appointed, 14 and 
in the others a majority of the burgess members. 15 

Most of the work of the earlier committee consisted in 
instructing the colonial agent, Edward Montague, as to what 
legislation of the colony he should support before the king, 
the Parliament, or the Board of Trade. The committee 
usually furnished the agent with reasons to be used by him in 
his arguments before the king or either of these bodies when- 
ever any laws of the colony were called into question. Often, 
as in the case of the acts of 1755 and 1758 for allowing the 
inhabitants to discharge their tobacco debts in money, 16 a 
full and complete history of the circumstances surrounding 
the passage of the acts under discussion was given. 17 The 
question raised by the opposition to the Two Penny Act was 
the right of the Virginia Assembly to pass temporary legis- 
lation. Montague was ordered to defend the act in ques- 
tion against the attacks of the clergy, and in any proceedings 
that should be carried to England in a suit which had been 
instituted by the Reverend John Camm against the vestry 
of York Hampton Parish to recover from them the full 
market value of his salary, he was to employ counsel on be- 
half of the vestries or collectors who had been working 
under the provisions of this act. 

While Mr. Camm's suit was pending, other ministers sued 
their vestries without much success. Of these cases the 
most celebrated was the "Parson's Cause," tried in the 
county court of Hanover in December, 1763. It was at this 

13 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. x, p. 339; vol. xi, pp. 10, 22, 132; vol. ix, 
PP- 356-357. 

14 Ibid., vol. x, p. 339. 

15 Ibid., vol. xi, pp. 132, 133. 

18 Hening, vol. vi, p. 568; vol. vii, pp. 240-241. This act of 1758 
was popularly known as " The Two Penny Act." 

17 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. x, pp. 347-356. 



94 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

time that Patrick Henry, as counsel for the defendants, 
first came before the public eye in a speech in which he 
boldly and eloquently stated the rights of the people. 
Henry voiced popular rights more strongly than they had 
been before publicly stated ; and from this advanced atti- 
tude he never receded, but assumed a position which in 1765 
placed him at the head of the resistance to parliamentary en- 
croachment, and made him the recognized leader of the 
movement for colonial legislative rights. 18 Only once had a 
stand anything like so advanced been taken, namely, the 
position maintained by James Otis in his argument against 
the writs of assistance ; but Otis had receded from this posi- 
tion in 1765, when he pronounced treasonable the Virginia 
resolutions against the Stamp Act, of which Patrick Henry 
was the author. 19 When the Stamp Act Congress met, Otis 
hesitated to sign the address to the king and the Parliament, 
and did so only under the inducement of Thomas Lynch of 
the South Carolina delegation. 20 

The act for appointing the agent was objected to by the 
Board of Trade, which threatened to have it disallowed 
unless certain alterations desired by the Board were made 
by the Assembly. The objection to the act was that the 
term " Assembly " was used where the Board of Trade 
thought " General Assembly " should be used, as will be seen 
from this extract from a letter from Governor Fauquier to 
the Lords of Trade: 

In relation to the Agent's Act, I am fully convinced that it was 
not the design of any part of the Legislature to g[i]ve the Com- 
mittee of Correspondence any powers for which they should not be 
accountable to the General Assembly, so that the alteration desired 
by your Lordsps will not as I apprehend meet with the least diffi- 
culty; whether the word General was left out by mistake, or whether 
the common acceptation of the words, Assemby and General As- 
sembly, having the same import' here, occasioned this, I know not, 

18 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, p. 100. 

19 Hutchinson, vol. iii, p. 119. 

20 W. Gordon, The History of the Rise, Progress and Establish- 
ment of the Independence of the United States of America, vol. 
i, p. 121. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1759 95 

but your Lordsps may depend on my rectifying this in the next 



session. 



This promise of Governor Fauquier was carried out. 
The letter from which the above extract was quoted was 
written on the first of September, 1760, and in October the 
assembly passed "An Act to explain and amend the Act, 
intitled, An Act for appointing an agent." 22 

This letter throws some light on the circumstances sur- 
rounding the passage of the act creating the colonial agent 
and appointing the committee of correspondence, under 
whose instructions he should work : 

I hope Your Lordpps will indulge me in the explanation of the 
step leading to this Agent's Act. When my predecessor the Honble 
Mr Dinwiddle had a dispute in this Colony abt the Pistole Fee, the 
Burgesses lamented their not having an Agent at Home, to repre- 
sent affairs of this nature to His Majty and Your Rt Honble Board 
supposing natuarally enough that Mr Abercrombie who was paid 
by the Govt and Council out of the 2sh. duty, would not solicit that 
or any other affair against the Govr ; so they sent home an Agent 23 
on purpose at a great expence. From that time they have been very 
intent on an Agent's Act, which in Mr Dinwiddie's time they could 
never obtain ; so intent were they on this affair, that they attempted 
to tack it to the money Bill, in the second Session after my arrival, 
which I told them I would certainly refuse under such conditions. 
As I hoped never to make myself liable to any complaint, I could 
not see the ill consequence of letting them have an Agent, upon 
their raising money on themselves to pay him. Thus the Agent's 
Bill was prepared and passed. Notwithstanding this appointment 
of an agent by Act of Assembly, Mr Abercrombie is still continued 
as Agent to me and the Council to transact all business relating to 
the Royal Revenues, and such other affairs as are immediately under 
our cognizance only. He has instructions to co-operate with the 
other Agent in all matters for the behoof and benefit of the 
Colony. 24 

There seems to be no reason why we should not accept this 



21 Letter from Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier to the Lords Com- 
missioners for Trade, etc., in Bancroft Transcripts, Library of Con- 
gress. Printed in Appendix to Journals of the House of Burgesses, 
1 758-1 761, pp. 287-289. 

22 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, pp. 190-196; 
Hening, vol. vii, pp. 375-377- 

23 Peyton Randolph, who was afterwards a member of both com- 
mittees of correspondence. 

24 Letter from Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier to the Lords Com- 
missioners for Trade, etc.. in Bancroft Transcripts, Library of Con- 
gress. Printed in Appendix to Journals of the House of Burgesses, 
1758-1761, pp. 287-289. 



g6 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

explanation of Governor Fauquier. His reasoning is log- 
ical ; and whether one agrees with his analysis of the situa- 
tion throughout or not, it was what he believed at the time 
concerning the affair, and history has shown that he was a 
man of tact and good sense. It is hardly too much to say 
of him that had his advice been followed by the British gov- 
ernment in regard to colonial taxation, many of England's 
troubles in America might have been avoided. That he 
had correctly gauged the feeling of legislative independence 
which, even at this time, characterized the Virginians is 
shown by the fact that as early as 1760 he had warned Pitt 
that any taxation laid upon the colonies by the British gov- 
ernment would lead to the most serious disturbances ; 25 and 
it was only about five years later that his unheeded advice 
was proved to have been correct by the storm of protest 
that greeted the news of the Stamp Act. 

Without discounting the testimony of Governor Fauquier, 
however, it may be said that he does not seem to have recog- 
nized that, in the creation of the committee of correspond- 
ence, the House of Burgesses had found a weapon with 
which to fight the future encroachment of king and Parlia- 
ment. Fauquier was on good terms with the people of his 
colony, who seem to have liked him ; and notwithstanding 
differences of opinion that arose between him and the mem- 
bers of the House of Burgesses, their personal relations 
were cordial. Of this there is abundant evidence in the 
journals of the House of Burgesses, 26 as well as in the 
letters 27 of the committee of correspondence to their agent. 
The good feeling which is manifested in their relations with 
each other is the best explanation of his failure to realize 
how effectively the Burgesses might use the committee of 
correspondence in a conflict between the executive and the 
legislative branch of the colonial government. 

25 W. Gordon, Independence of the United States, vol. i, p. 136. 

26 See Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, and 1761- 
1765, especially the Messages of the Governor to the Assembly and 
the Addresses of the Assembly to the Governor during those years. 

27 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xi, pp. 11, 13, 25. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND I759 97 

On the other hand, the Board of Trade, having in mind 
past conflicts between the legislative and the executive 
branch of the colonial government, and realizing the use 
that could be made of such a committee of correspondence 
if it were amenable to the House of Burgesses alone, wished 
to have the act so drawn that the committee of correspond- 
ence should be clearly under the control of the General As- 
sembly. With plans for a new and more closely supervised 
colonial policy under way, it is not unlikely that the admin- 
istration expected trouble, and did not wish to give the Vir- 
ginia House of Burgesses so powerful a weapon with which 
to oppose its colonial plans. 

That the Agent's Act was passed in good faith by the Vir- 
ginia Assembly, and that it was clearly set forth in the pro- 
visions of the act that the committee of correspondence 
should be under the joint control of both houses, were facts 
so evident to the General Assembly that, while that body 
was willing to amend and explain the act, as requested by 
the governor under instructions from the Board of Trade, 
the language of the explanatory clause in the new act clearly 
shows that the Assembly itself did not think the act of 1759 
in any way ambiguous. While the Virginia legislature saw 
no need for explaining and amending the earlier act, it was 
so anxious to retain its agent and its committee of corre- 
spondence that it complied with the wishes of the adminis- 
tration and thus saved the act from being disallowed. 28 

In its first letter to Mr. Montague, written December 
12, 1759, the committee of correspondence states in these 
words the reasons for the appointment of an agent : 

The Appointment of such an Officer to represent' the Grievances 
of the People, to justify their Conduct to their Sovereign, to obtain 
his Approbation & Assent to such Laws as their Representatives 
shall think necessary for their Welfare and good Government, to 
implore his Assistance in the time of Danger and Calamity, and to 
protect and explain their Rights & Interest in Parliament, seem to 
be the natural Privilege of all Colonies, so far removed from their 
King and Mother Country. Yet' the People of this Colony have 
had the Misfortune allways to be disappointed in their Endeavors 

28 Hening, vol. vii, pp. 375-377- Clause III of this act is the ex- 
plaining and amending clause. 

7 



98 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

to attain this Right, tho universally claim'd, and enjoy'd by all his 
Majesty's other Colonies and have been obliged to depend for these 
great and important Services on an Agent appointed by the Gov- 
ernor and Council, who for want of the Weight which a national 
Establishment would have given him, the Authority which must' 
necessarily be derived from every Power of the Legislature, the 
Instructions when and for what Reasons he should interpose, must 
have been very deficient in his Duty, when considered as regarding 
the whole. Besides sometimes different Interest's arise among the 
different Branches of the Legislature, different instructions then 
become necessary; an Agent so appointed is obliged to obey those 
by whom he is appointed, and by the plainest Consequence in Affairs 
of the greatest Moment, the Body of the people may be left without 
the Shadow of a Representative. 29 

As shown by the extract just cited, the reasons for the ap- 
pointment of the agent as set forth by the committee of cor- 
respondence are substantially those given by Governor 
Fauquier to the Lords of Trade. 

In another paragraph the relation between the agent and 
the committee of correspondence is clearly stated as follows : 

We being by the same Act appointed a Committee to correspond 
with the Agent, must now desire you to take this Office upon you, 
and that you will take Care allways to be ready to prevent the Re- 
peal of Laws passed by the Legislature, the Reasons for which, 
will be from time to time transmitted to you by us ; to support any 
Representations which it will be necessary to make, and for that 
Purpose will not fail to attend them thro' the several Boards to 
which they may be referred ; To give early Intelligence of anything 
that may be moved in Parliament, or the Department for American 
Affairs to this Committee ; And in all things relative to this Colony, 
to use your best Endeavors, according to your Discretion, to protect 
her Rights and secure her Interest. 30 

From this statement of his duties it will readily be seen 
that the chief function of the agent was to look out for any 
acts passed by the colonial legislature which might be called 
into question by the home government. In the exercise of 
this function he was to act under the instructions sent him, 
from time to time, by the committee of correspondence. 
Another important duty was the communication to the com- 

29 Letter from the committee of correspondence to the agent, 
dated December 12, 1759. Original in Virginia Archives. Printed 
in Proceedings of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence, in 
Virginia Magazine of History, vol. x, pp. 342-353. 

30 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. x, 
P- 343- 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND I759 99 

mittee of the proceedings of Parliament or of any of the 
various governmental boards relative to American affairs, 
especially to the colony of Virginia. This latter function 
was very much the same as that of the intercolonial com- 
mittees of 1773, the difference being that in this case the 
correspondence was carried on between the committee and 
the agent, whereas in 1773 the corresponding parties were 
committees of correspondence of different colonies, work- 
ing for mutual interests. 

Up to the year 1764 the records of the committee of cor- 
respondence are fairly well preserved. An examination of 
the proceedings and the correspondence shows that the com- 
mittee was active in furnishing the agent with instructions 
regarding the legislation which he should support, and that 
it furnished him with data upon which he should base his 
arguments before the various bodies in which he had to 
appear in defending the acts of the General Assembly. 

During the year 1759 there were six meetings of the com- 
mittee of correspondence ; 31 and of these meetings we have 
the minutes. Most of these meetings were taken up with 
deciding on instructions to be sent to the agent and in ap- 
pointing a select committee to prepare the first letter written 
to him. The letter was finally forwarded to Montague on 
December 12. The principal matters to which his atten- 
tion was directed by the committee were the defence of the 
vestries or collectors in any proceedings against them grow- 
ing out of the provisions of the Two Penny Act, to which 
allusion has already been made ; the solicitation of Virginia's 
share in the money appropriated by Parliament to reimburse 
the colonies in part for their great expenditures in the war 
against the French and Indians ; to endeavor to procure the 
king's assent to " An Act for settling the Titles and Bounds 
of Lands and for preventing unlawful Hunting and Rang- 
ing," which as it had a suspending clause could not go into 

31 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. x, pp. 337-341. 



IOO THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

effect without the royal assent ; 32 and to make a defence 
against the complaints of the British merchants of the ac- 
tion of the Virginia Assembly in issuing treasury notes, and 
making them legal tender for sterling debts, subject to ex- 
change whose rate should be determined by the courts. 33 
The regulation of the rate of exchange when sterling debts 
were paid in treasury notes, which had been issued by the 
Assembly to meet the increased expenditures of the war, 
was a matter of great importance, underlying as it did the 
very foundation of the economic life of the colony. By an 
instruction sent to the governor, 34 the Assembly had found 
that the merchants of Great Britain were still dissatisfied 
with the law making these notes (issued pursuant to sev- 
eral acts of Assembly for the defence of the colony) a 
proper tender for sterling debts. The reasons for the pass- 
ing of such legislation were given to the agent, with a short 
review of the conditions leading up to the acts in question, 
in order that the agent might have material upon which to 
base his arguments in support of the action of the Assembly. 
From the " Defence of the Virginia Paper Currency " 35 en- 
closed in this letter to the agent, and from the statement of 
the situation made in the letter, it appears that the treasury 
notes of the colony and the laws governing their issue were 
emergency measures based on large humanitarian principles, 
and designed for the protection of the people and the secu- 
rity of the creditors. 36 

32 Herring, vol. v, pp. 408-431. This statute was passed to put 
into one act all the existing laws of the colony relating to the con- 
veyancing, taking up, settling, saving, and cultivating of lands ; and 
also to include with them an act prescribing the method of docking 
the entails of land of no greater value than £200 sterling, by a writ, 
called a Writ of Ad quod Damnum. 

33 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. x, 
PP- 345~347- This letter gives reasons for the passage of this law, 
namely, that exchange being a fluctuating quantity, the act of As- 
sembly gave the courts the power of determining the difference 
between the value of sterling money and the treasury notes at the 
time of judgment. 

34 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1758-1761, p. 134. 

35 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xi, pp. 1-5. 

36 W. Z. Ripley, The Financial History of Virginia, pp. 153-162; 
see also Virginia Magazine of History, vol. vi, pp. 127-134, which 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND I759 IOI 

In the year 1760 there were three meetings of the com- 
mittee of correspondence, held during the months of Oc- 
tober and November, the result of which was a second letter 
to the agent. 37 In this Montague was notified that he was 
not to look upon Abercrombie as agent of the colony, but 
that he should consider himself as such to all intents and 
purposes, and " not suffer any other Person to interfere " 
with him in the execution of that office. 38 He was further 
notified that the act for appointing an agent had been 
amended and explained so as to remove the objection urged 
against it by Sir Matthew Lamb, which had been the basis 
of the objection by the Board of Trade already noted. 

Montague was likewise instructed how he should pro- 
ceed in collecting Virginia's proportion of the money granted 
to the American colonies by Parliament. He was informed 
of the passage of two acts of Assembly, "the one for re- 
cruiting & further continuing the old Regiment in the Serv- 
ice of this Colony," and for other purposes therein men- 
tioned, 39 the other for appointing " Persons to receive the 
money granted or to be granted by the Parliament of Great 
Britain to his Majesty for the use of this Colony." 40 By 
a clause in the former of these acts the governor, the presi- 
dent of the Council, and the speaker of the House were 
authorized to draw bills of exchange on James Abercrombie 
to the amount of £20,000, Virginia currency. By the other 

contains a letter written by Richard Bland, a member of this com- 
mittee of correspondence, in which he says that the British mer- 
chants at first bitterly opposed the note issue, but' at the time he 
was writing they were the warmest solicitors of the Assembly for 
that species of money. He states that of £750,000 treasury notes 
which were issued during the war, it was probable that only the 
amount of £60,000 was outstanding. In discussing Virginia's first 
experience with paper money, Ripley says that it was on the whole 
a creditable one. " But we must remember the distress of the 
times, and the heroic exertions of the colony during the [French 
and Indian] war. In view of these facts, the moderation and fore- 
sight' of her statesmen is in marked contrast with the reckless finan- 
ciering of some of the other colonies both north and south " (p. 160). 

37 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xi, pp. 10-17. 

38 Ibid., p. 12. 

39 Hening, vol. vii, p. 369. 

40 Ibid., p. 372. 



102 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

act the same officers of the colony were authorized and em- 
powered to draw bills of exchange on the said Abercrombie 
for the balance remaining in his hands of the £32,260 19s. 
and £20,546 allotted by His Majesty to the colony; and 
Montague was authorized and empowered to receive this 
money from Abercrombie, after having informed himself 
what commissions had been allowed the agents of the other 
colonies for the collection of similar claims. Any further 
grants of money to the colony Montague was authorized to 
receive. In this letter it is clearly shown that the committee 
of correspondence looked to Montague as the agent of the 
colony. 41 

In this letter there was also enclosed an address and ex- 
planation regarding legislation enacted by the General As- 
sembly, which had been thrown in an unfavorable light by 
the complaints of the clergy. The agent was directed to 
make use of the arguments set forth in the representation, 
which the committee conceived to be " sufficient to acquit 
the Legislature of any sinister or disloyal Intentions." 42 So 
important did the committee of correspondence deem the 
matters discussed in that document that it wrote the agent 
concerning them as follows : 

But as the matters contain'd in the latter Part of the Representa- 
tion are of the greatest Importance to this Colony, & the very being 
of the Constitution depending thereon, it may be necessary to add 
some further Observations and Reasons to those contained therein. 
The Instructions to the Governor of this Colony were given by 
King Charles the second soon after the Restoration, & have had 
little Alteration since. By the 16th Article of those Instructions 
the Governor is directed to pass no Act of less Continuance than 
two Years, & no Act repealing or amending any other Act, whether 
the same has or has not receiv'd his Majesty's Assent, unless a 
Clause be inserted suspending the Execution thereof until his Royal 
Pleasure shall be known. So far as relates to the passing Act's for 
repealing or amending any Act assented to by His Majesty, the 
Assembly has always paid a due Obedience to his Instructions, but 
the Instruction relating to the repealing or amending Laws, which 
never have had His Majesty's Assent', or have been made for a 
shorter term than two Years, has never been attended to. And as 

41 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xl, 
p. 14. 

42 Ibid. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 IO3 

a proof that this Instruction has not always been enforced even by 
the Ministry, the General Assembly revise'd our Laws in 1748, when 
many of them were both alt'er'd and repeal'd. The Ministry at 
that Time were so far from disapproving their Conduct, that they 
recommended it to the other Colonies to imitate their Example. 
By a Recourse to the Laws, you'll find that the Assemblies have 
exercis'd this Power since the Date of the Instructions so much 
relied on. And we are persuaded that this Instruction would not 
at this Time have been enforced, had it not been for the Clamour 
of a few dissatisfied Clergy, who preferring their own interest to 
every other Consideration, have not hesitated by their cunning & 
artful Insinuations, & by their false & scandalous Representations 
to blacken the Character of the Legislature of this Colony. Upon 
this factious Complaint of the Clergy his Majesty has been pleas'd 
to send an Additional Instruction to enforce that old Instruction, 
which has been so long consider'd as obsolete, By which the Gov- 
ernor, who is on every Occasion desirous of promoting the Interest 
& Happiness of this Colony, thinks himself restrain'd from passing 
any Act contrary to the Letter thereof. And it is apparent that if 
he should adhere thereto, the Privilege of making Laws, which all 
his Majesty's colonies have, & ought to enjoy, will be abridg'd, & 
in a great Measure abolished. 43 

The necessity of passing temporary legislation is explained 
by the committee, and it is shown that this would be impos- 
sible if the new instructions were adhered to : 

For all countries are liable to such Changes & Accidents, as re- 
quire the immediate Interposition of the Legislature, And no less 
than an infallible Power can form Laws so perfect that they may 
not afterwards stand in Need of Alterations or Amendments. You 
can easily suggest the many Inconveniences we must necessarily 
labour under, by being oblig'd to suspend the Execution of any 
Act, let ye emergency be ever so great, till his Majesty's Pleasure 
can be known. It is well known, that we have been in a state of 
War ever since the Year 1753, that we have been under a Necessity 
to make annual Provision for our Troops, and to guard against the 
various & unforeseen Events which must happen at such a Time, 
That an annual Provision must be made to prevent Mutiny & De- 
sertion, neither of which can be done if we are restrain'd by Instruc- 
tions from passing such occasional Laws. 44 

The letter shows further that in the year 1705 an act 45 
was passed by the Assembly for paying the burgesses one 
hundred and thirty pounds of tobacco and cask per diem, 
which was equivalent to ten shillings ; and that notwithstand- 



43 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, 
pp. 14-16. 

44 Ibid., p. 16. 

45 Hening, vol. iii, p. 244. 



104 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

ing the great advance in the value of tobacco, the Assembly 
had consistently passed acts fixing the salaries of the bur- 
gesses in money at ten shillings per diem. This was done 
to ease the people, and shows conclusively that the burgesses 
had not acted on principles of self-interest, but for the gen- 
eral good of the people of the colony. 

For the year 1761 we have the record of three meetings 
of the committee of correspondence. The first was held on 
May 4, and resulted in the drafting and adopting of a third 
letter to the agent. 46 In this he was instructed to defend 
the passing of an act of Assembly entitled, "An Act for the 
Relief of certain Creditors," 47 and to support the act should 
its validity be called into question before the Privy Council 
in an appeal from a decree in Chancery passed by the Vir- 
ginia general court. The case in which the validity of this 
law was involved was that of Thornton et als. v. Buchanan 
and Hamilton, late of London, Bankrupts, and their As- 
signees and Factors in Virginia. As the respondents would 
send over a copy of the decree of the general court and as 
they would also employ counsel to prevent a reversal of the 
decision of that body, the agent was instructed not to act as 
a principal in the dispute, although he was asked to employ 
the best counsel he could to defend the act ; and he was fur- 
nished with a copy of the act, ratified in due form by the 
king. This ratified act of Assembly the committee declared 
" no power on Earth can alter the Force of . . . less than 
our Assembly with his Majesty's Assent." Montague was 
further instructed regarding the number of soldiers fur- 
nished for the campaign of 1760. He was provided with 
evidence to prove that the colony had expended all that they 
had received of the former parliamentary grants, and that 
there would be a large deficiency when the expenses of the 
war were all paid. He was also to make application to the 
Lords of the Admiralty for some protection to the trade 
between Great Britain and Virginia, as it was being preyed 

46 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, 
pp. 18-21. 

47 Hening, vol. v, p. 244. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1759 105 

upon by the privateers of the enemy. Not only had their 
letters to the agent been twice taken in this way, but the 
people were complaining of the unprotected condition of 
the coasts of the colony ; and a trading ship from Guinea 
had been carried off from the entrance to the largest Vir- 
ginia harbor. Against such conditions the agent was in- 
structed to enter a protest. 48 

At a meeting on June 3 the fourth letter to the agent was 
adopted and signed by the members who were present, the 
letter having been previously drafted by a select committee 
consisting of Messrs. Peyton Randolph, Nicholas, and 
Wythe, who had been appointed to this committee at the 
meeting held on the eleventh. 49 In this letter Montague 
was notified that his letters of February 15 and 19 and 
March 3 and 5 had been received ; and the committee ex- 
pressed itself as being pleased with his work. The delay 
in transmitting the Assembly's expressions of grief at the 
death of George II, as well as their congratulations to his 
successor on his accession to the throne, was explained as 
being due to the fact that these matters had had to await the 
meeting of the Assembly. In regard to the appropriations 
of Parliament to the colonies for their war expenses the 
committee wrote as follows : 

If the resolution of the lords of the treasury ' to admit no sollici- 
tations from the agents relating to the distribution of the money 
granted by parliament' is not unalterable; if they can be made ac- 
quainted with what we have formerly written on that head ; if 
they knew what is notorious and confessed here, that Maryland did 
not furnish a single man for the service in 1759, and for several 
years before; and if they were informed that 1,000 of the men 
levied, subsisted and paid by this colony last campaign, serving 
under an officer who received his orders from General Amherst', 
were intended to have joined his majesty's forces under Col. Monk- 
ton, and would actually have done so, but they were afterwards, 
with the general's approbation, directed to assist the forces from 
South Carolina under col. Montgomery. We say if these consid- 
erations were sufficiently attended to, have we not reason to hope 
the application of the money would be more justly proportioned to 
the vigor and strenuous efforts of the respective provinces? 

48 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, 
pp. 18-21. 

49 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xi, pp. 21-23. 



106 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

The only other matter of great importance discussed in 
this letter was the regulation of the commission to be paid 
to the agents for the collection of these parliamentary- 
grants ; and Montague was notified that he was to get one 
and a half per cent for his collections. In regard to the 
excessive commissions charged by Abercrombie, he was to 
notify that gentleman that these should be reduced to that 
percentage of the money collected, or Montague would re- 
fuse to pass his account at the treasury. 50 

The proceedings of the committee of correspondence that 
have been preserved for the year 1762 are extremely meagre. 
These records show two meetings in the spring of that year, 
one on April 30 and the other on May 4. At the first meet- 
ing a letter was ordered to be prepared by a select commit- 
tee, then appointed, and the subjects of instruction for the 
agent were stated in an order by the committee as a whole. 
The minutes of the second meeting simply show what mem- 
bers were present. As this meeting was held a few days 
after that just mentioned, it is likely that the select commit- 
tee for preparing the letter to the agent reported back to the 
full committee its draft of the letter, which on that day was 
signed by the members present, for we find an allusion made 
to the letter to the agent of the date of May 4 in a later meet- 
ing of the committee. 51 No copy of this letter is found in 
the record of the proceedings of the committee of corre- 
spondence though it was undoubtedly prepared and trans- 
mitted to the agent. 52 

The records of the committee of correspondence are more 
complete for the year 1763. Meetings were held on the fol- 
lowing dates : March 29, June 16, and June 17. At the first 
meeting it was decided that a select committee should pre- 
pare a letter to the agent which should furnish reasons for 
the support of the law relating to the election of the bur- 



r, ° Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xi, pp. 23-25. 

51 Ibid., p. 132. 

52 Ibid., pp. 131, 132. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND I759 IC>7 

gesses, 53 the law for the relief of insolvent debtors, 54 the 
law for regulating the gold coin of the German Empire, 55 
and the law regarding " Strays." 56 The first and fourth of 
these acts having suspending clauses, the agent was in- 
structed to apply for the king's assent to them. He was also 
to apply to Parliament for leave to import salt from any of 
the countries of Europe, and the committee furnished him 
with extensive arguments in favor of this privilege. More- 
over, he was ordered to inform the committee at his earliest 
opportunity of any objection that should be urged against 
the importation of salt ; and he was directed to ask the as- 
sistance of the other agents in securing the free importation 
of this necessity. 57 This was an important step toward 
cooperation. 

At the meeting held on June 16 a letter was adopted, 
which had been previously drawn up by some members of 
the committee, answering the British Merchants' Memorial 
and the Resolution of the Board of Trade relative to the 
Virginia paper currency. It was ordered that two copies 
of the letter, as well as of the papers mentioned therein, 
should be prepared and sent to the agent. 58 The next day 
at another meeting, in which the same members were pres- 
ent, a letter was prepared enclosing a draft of an address 
prepared by the House of Burgesses in favor of the officers 
of the Virginia regiment for presentation to His Majesty. 
In this there were two enclosures, one a paper seeking 
consent of the king to a bill for declaring slaves personal 
property, the other, notifying the agent of the passage of an 
act for adding new members to the committee of corre- 
spondence. The second enclosure stated that the Assembly 
had agreed to allow Abercrombie's claim for £140, and 
would send the "proper powers for his obtaining it, upon 

53 Herring, vol. vii, p. 517. 

54 Ibid., p. 549. 

55 Ibid., p. 575. 

56 Ibid., p. 545. 

5T Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, 
pp. 133-143. 
58 Ibid., p. 350. 



IOS THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

his paying the Ballance due, for which they will draw on 
him." 59 

That the committee of correspondence, during the years 
through which we have traced its proceedings, looked upon 
itself as a standing committee of the General Assembly is 
evident from the fact that its papers and correspondence 
were frequently laid before that body, 00 and that the com- 
mittee carried out the orders and instructions of the As- 
sembly is shown by the letters to the agent which contained 
instructions carrying out the resolutions of the legislature. 01 
Composed as it was of the leading members of both the 
Council and the House of Burgesses, it is only natural that 
the committee of correspondence should have kept in close 
touch with those bodies. 

During the year 1764 four meetings were held. At the 
first, held on January 18, the letters of Montague dated April 
20, June 28, and October 10, 1763, were read and acknowl- 
edged. He was thanked for his care and attention to the 
interest of the colony, especially in regard to the parlia- 
mentary grant for the service of 1762. Approval was ex- 
pressed of the " measures he had taken in concert with the 
other American agents to obtain a division of the Parlia- 
mentary grant of 1761 ; and he was directed to take the 
proper steps for receiving the proportion agreed to be re- 
funded by the province of Pennsylvania." Should the act 
for regulating the election of burgesses be repealed, the 
agent was instructed to obtain permission for the reenact- 
ment of such parts as were not disapproved by the adminis- 
tration. In answer to the application of the gentleman who 
desired to have the colony sell him the right to an exclusive 
fishery at the Virginia Capes, Montague was ordered to 
answer that the committee believed all such exclusive grants 
to be extremely prejudicial to others ; and further that it 
was of the opinion that the adjoining lands were bounded 

59 Letter to the agent, in Virginia Magazine of History, vol. xi, 

PP- 348-349. 350-354- 

60 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, pp. 9, 70, 173, 175- 

61 Ibid., 1761-1765, PP- 37, 159, 193- 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND I759 I O9 

by the sea, and the proprietors could not dispose of such 
a right. 62 

At a meeting held on June 15 letters from Mr. Montague 
bearing the dates of November 26 and December 23, 1763, 
and January 20 and 26 and March 10, 1764, were read, 63 
and a committee consisting of Messrs. Wythe and Nicholas 
was appointed to prepare a reply. The draft of this letter 
was reported at the next meeting, July 28, when it was 
agreed to and signed by the members present, with the ad- 
dition of a postscript " immediately penned at the Table." 64 
The postscript was prompted by the reading of a letter from 
Mr. Montague received since the last meeting, stating that 
Parliament seemed determined to tax the colonies. The re- 
ply is mostly confined to a discussion of the Stamp Act, and 
states very clearly the opposition on the part of the commit- 
tee to such a measure. As Virginia took a leading part in 
the opposition to the Stamp Act and as the famous resolu- 
tions against that measure originated in the House of Bur- 
gesses, 65 it is especially important that the opinion of its 
committee of correspondence regarding taxation should be 
carefully examined. The statement made in this letter to 
the agent is based on the principle that representation and 
taxation go hand in hand ; and their protest exhibits gloomy 
forebodings for the future. 

We have been very uneasy at an Attempt made in Parliament to 
lay a Duty on the several Commodities mentioned in their Votes, 
of which you were pleased to favour us with a Copy; the tax upon 
Madeira Wine will be very inconvenient to us, & we had it in our 
Intention to furnish you with such Reasons ag't it as we thought 

62 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xii, pp. 4-5. 

63 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 
G4 Ibid., pp. 6-7. 

65 G. Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. iii, p. 112; Ed- 
mund Burke, Speech in the House of Commons, April 19, 1774, in 
P. Force, The American Archives, 4th series, vol. i, pp. 155-156 (cited 
as American Archives) ; Letter from John Adams to Patrick Henry, 
June 3, 1776, in C. F. Adams, The Life and Writings of John Adams, 
vol. ix, pp. 386-388. For Jefferson's statement to William Wirt and 
Edmund Randolph's statement in his History of Virginia, see Henry, 
Patrick Henry, vol. i, p. 100. 



HO THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

might have some Weight, but finding from the public Prints that 
an Act, imposing this Duty, had already pass'd, it is become unnec- 
essary for us to say any Thing farther upon that Head. The Pro- 
posal to lay a stamp Duty upon Paper & Leather is truly alarming; 
should it take Place, the immediate Effects of an additional, heavy 
burthen imposed upon a People already laden with Debts, contracted 
chiefly in Defence of the Common Cause & necessarily to continue 
by express Stipulation for a number of years to come, will be se- 
verely felt by us & our Children ; but what makes the approaching 
Storm appear still more gloomy & dismal is, that, if it should be 
suffer'd to break upon our Heads, not only we & our Children, but 
our latest Posterity may & will probably be involved in its fatal 
Consequences. It may, perhaps, be thought presumptious in us to 
attempt or even desire any Thing which may look like a restraint 
upon the controlling Power of Parliament: We only wish that our 
just Liberties & Privileges as free born British Subjects were once 
properly defin'd, & we think that we may venture to say that the 
People of Virginia, however they may have been misrepresented, 
would never entertain the most distant Inclination to transgress 
their just Limits. That no Subjects of the King of Great Britain 
can be justly made subservient to Laws without either their personal 
Consent, or their Consent by their Representatives we take to be 
the most vital Principle of the British Constitution ; it cannot be 
denied that the Parliament has from Time to Time, where the 
Trade of the Colonies with other Part's was likely to interfere with 
that of the Mother Country, made such laws as were thought suffi- 
cient to restrain such Trade to what was judg'd its proper Channel, 
neither can it be denied that, the Parliament, out of the same Pleni- 
tude of its Power, has gone a little Step farther & imposed some 
Duties upon our Exports ; but to fix a Tax upon such Part of our 
Trade & concerns as are merely internal, appears to us to be taking 
a long & hasty Stride & we believe may truly be said to be of the 
first Importance. 66 

From this extract it will readily be seen that the com- 
mittee of correspondence, while recognizing the power of 
Parliament to levy the tax provided for in the Stamp Act, 
distinguished clearly between the power of Parliament to 
levy such a tax and its right to do so. This distinction is 
especially apparent in the postscript before alluded to, which 
is as follows : 

Since writing the foregoing Part of this Letter, we have received 
your last of n Apl ; Every Mention of the parliam'ts Intention to 
lay an Inland Duty upon us gives us fresh Apprehension of the fatal 
Consequences that may arise to Posterity from such a Precedent ; 
but we doubt not that the Wisdom of a British Parliamt will lead 
them to distinguish between a Power and Right to do any act. No 
man can say but that they have a power to declare that his Majesty 

66 Proceedings of Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xii, pp. 9-10. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1/59 I I I 

may raise Money upon the people of England by Proclamation, but 
no man surely dare be such an Enemy to his Country as to say that 
they have a Right to do this. We conceive that no Man or Body 
of Men, however invested with power, have a Right to do anything 
that is contrary to Reason & Justice, or that can tend to the Destruc- 
tion of the Constitution. These things we write to you with great 
Freedom and under the greatest Concern, but your Discretion will 
teach you to make a prudent use of them." 7 

The postscript further asks why the British administra- 
tion should not levy this sum of money in a constitutional 
way, if it was found necessary to meet the war debts by 
special taxes on the colonies. If a reasonable apportion- 
ment should be laid before the Virginia legislature, its past 
compliance with His Majesty's several requisitions during 
the late war left no room for doubt that it would do every- 
thing that could reasonably be expected of it. As the Gen- 
eral Assembly would not meet until October 30, the agent 
was asked to do what he could to postpone any decision on 
this subject until its sentiments thereupon could be furnished 
to him by the committee of correspondence. 

Unfortunately the records of the proceedings of the com- 
mittee during the Stamp Act period are very meagre, but 
such as have been preserved are of extreme importance. 
In them we find the committee exercising functions which 
characterize the work of the committee of 1773. There was 
a meeting on December 19, toward the end of this session of 
the Assembly, which adjourned on December 21 to meet 
again the following May. 68 The proceedings of this meet- 
ing state that a letter was read from Mr. Montague, dated 
July 21, 1764, and that a reply was immediately prepared in- 
forming him of the proceedings of the present Assembly 
on the subject of taxes proposed to be laid on the colonies 
by Parliament. Copies of the address of the Assembly to 
the king and of the memorials to the two Houses of Par- 
liament, which had been unanimously agreed to by the 
House of Burgesses and the Council, 69 were ordered to be 

67 Proceedings of Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xii, p. 14. 

68 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, p. 309. 

69 Ibid., pp. 257, 301-305. 



112 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

prepared and sent to the agent, who was instructed to use 
every possible means to have them properly presented and 
to support them with all the influence he had. The com- 
mittee expected that there would be trouble in having the 
memorial presented to the House of Commons, for it wrote 
regarding this matter as follows : 

We are under some apprehensions that you will meet with Diffi- 
culty in getting the memorial to the Commons laid before them, as 
we have heard of their refusing to receive Petitions from the Colo- 
nies in former similar Instances. If this should be now the case we 
think you should have them printed and dispersed over the Nation, 
or the substance of them at least published in such manner as you 
may think least liable to objection, that the People of England may 
be acquainted with the Privileges & Liberties we claim as British 
Subjects; as their Brethren and the dreadful apprehensions we are 
under of being deprived of them in the unconstitutional method 
proposed. 70 

It is this function of publishing the colonial grievances 
and of stating colonial rights that is one of the most im- 
portant features of the work of the committee of corre- 
spondence of 1773; and in the performance of this duty 
these two committees, the committee of correspondence ap- 
pointed to communicate with the agent and the intercolonial 
committee of 1773, show a marked similarity. 

This letter closed with a statement of the confidence of 
the committee in its agent, and with the declaration that the 
many proofs he had already given of attention to the in- 
terests of the colony gave assurance that he would do 
everything in his power to protect the rights of the col- 
ony at this time, and that it was persuaded that all of his 
efforts in that direction would be heartily seconded by the 
agents for the other American colonies. 71 Here in the face 
of a common grievance, which threatened alike the local 
self-government of every colony, the committee seemed to 
feel that mutual interests would draw the representatives of 
the various colonies together. Here also appears a desire 
that the agents of the respective colonies should cooperate 

70 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. ix, pp. 354-355. 

71 Ibid., p. 355. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1 759 I I 3 

to protect legislative rights which were the common prop- 
erty of all. That the committee should have expected united 
action in a cause involving the very governmental inde- 
pendence of each of the colonial assemblies is proof that 
even at this time certain forces, both within and without the 
colonies, were making slowly for their union. 

It is in the proceedings of the House of Burgesses that 
direct evidence is found of the use of this committee for 
the purpose of intercolonial correspondence. 72 In its meet- 
ing of June 13, 1764, the Massachusetts general court, upon 
the motion of Samuel Adams, had appointed a committee 
to act in the recess of the court and to cooperate with the 
other governments in obtaining a repeal of the Sugar Act 
and preventing a Stamp Act. 73 Here was a recess commit- 
tee created for a specific purpose, and it is in answering the 
letter of this committee that we see the Virginia House of 
Burgesses, in November of that year, utilizing its already 
existing committee of correspondence for intercolonial com- 
munication. The letter from the Massachusetts committee 
was received by the speaker of the House of Burgesses in 
July, and was laid by him before that body on November 
1, a few days after the opening of the session. On No- 
vember 13 this letter, together with the letters to and from 
the agent, were referred to the committee of the whole 
house sitting on the state of the colony ; and on the next 
day the committee reported that, after considering the state 
of the colony, it had come to several resolutions. The first 
three of these resolutions provided for an address to the 
king, a memorial to the House of Lords, and a memorial 
to the House of Commons, protesting against internal taxa- 
tion save by their representatives. The fourth resolution 
was as follows : 

That the Committee appointed to correspond with the Agent of 
this Colony in Great' Britain pursuant to an Act of Assembly for 
appointing an agent, be directed to answer the letter of the 25th of 

72 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, p. 257. 

73 W. V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, 
vol. i, pp. 49, 50- 



I 14 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

June last from the Committee of the House of Representatives of 
the Province of Massachusetts Bay to the Honourable the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives for the Province of Virginia, and 
to assure that Committee that the Assembly of Virginia are highly 
sensible of the very great Importance it is, as well to the Colony of 
Virginia, as to America in general, that the subjects of Great 
Britain in this Part of its Dominions should continue the possession 
of their ancient and most valuable Right of being taxed only by 
Consent of their Representatives, and that the Assembly here will 
omit no Measures in their Power to prevent such essential Injury 
from being done to the Rights and Liberties of the People. 74 

It was for a similar purpose of intercolonial correspond- 
ence that the committee of 1773 was formed; and it is only 
reasonable to suppose that the four members of this com- 
mittee who had also been members of the earlier committee 
were influenced by their previous experience. One thing 
is clear, that they had seen the earlier committee perform 
the duty of intercolonial communication regarding the 
Stamp Act, and as far as the rules under which the com- 
mittee was to work were concerned, it will be shown that 
they were similar to those governing the earlier committee. 

It is very much to be regretted that the valuable series of 
papers containing the proceedings of the Virginia commit- 
tee of correspondence is incomplete. For the period be- 
tween July 28, 1764, and November 9, 1769, only two papers 
have been preserved. These are the proceedings of a meet- 
ing held December 9, 1764, which we have already exam- 
ined, and of meetings of September 14 and 19, 1765. At 
the meeting of September 14 a select committee, consisting 
of Peyton Randolph, George Wythe, and Robert Carter 
Nicholas, was appointed to prepare a letter to the agent in- 
forming him of the receipt of his letters of November 19, 
1764, February 7 and 16, April 4, and May I, 1765, and 
notifying him of spurious copies of the resolutions of the 
last session of the Assembly which were being dispersed 
and printed in the newspapers. In order that he might pre- 
vent any bad impression from the circulation of the alleged 
action of the House of Burgesses it was decided to send 



74 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, pp. 233, 254, 
256, 257. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 I I 5 

him an authenticated copy of the resolutions passed on hear- 
ing of the Stamp Act. 

These so-called " spurious copies " were doubtless copies 
made of the original draft by their author and mover Patrick- 
Henry. 75 Originally there were seven resolutions, includ- 
ing the preamble, and it seems to have been Henry's inten- 
tion to have all seven of them passed by the House of Bur- 
gesses. When this was found impossible, all seven were 
printed, probably for the effect they might have in the other 
colonies. They appeared in the Newport Mercury of June 
24, and were copied in the Boston papers of July i, 1765. 76 

There is in existence a transcript of the five resolutions 
that were adopted by the House of Burgesses, after having 
been introduced by Mr. Henry on May 29. On the back 
of the paper is an endorsement by Mr. Henry which gives 
his story of the passage of the resolutions. 77 Thomas Jef- 
ferson, then a student at William and Mary College, heard 
the debate, and gave the following interesting account of 
the passage of the resolutions and the subsequent expunging 
of the fifth resolution from the record: 



75 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. ix, pp. 355-360. 

76 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, Introduction, 
p. lxv. 

77 Preserved at Red Hill, Henry's old estate in Charlotte County. 
"The within resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May 

1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act' and the 
scheme for taxing America by the British Parliament. All the 
colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an 
opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained 
silent. I had been for the first time elected a Burgess a few days 
before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of 
the House, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of 
weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at 
hand and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to 
venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of 
an old law-book wrote the within. Upon offering them to the House 
violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse 
cast upon me by the party for submission. After a long and warm 
contest the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of 
one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with aston- 
ishing quickness, and the Ministerial party were overwhelmed. The 
great point of resistance to British taxation was universally estab- 
lished in the colonies. This brought on the war which finally sepa- 
rated the two countries and gave independence to ours." 



I 16 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Mr. Henry moved and Mr. Johnston seconded these resolutions 
successively. They were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pen- 
dleton, Wythe, and all the old members, whose influence in the 
House had, till then, been unbroken. They did it not from any 
question of our rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments 
had been, at their preceding session, expressed in a more conciliatory 
form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents 
of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning 
of Johnston, prevailed. The last, however, and strongest resolu- 
tion was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it was most 
bloody. I was then but a student, and stood at the door of com- 
munication between the House and the lobby (for as yet there was 
no gallery) during the whole debate and vote ; and I well remember 
that, after the members on the division were told and declared from 
the chair, Peyton Randolph (the Attorney-General) came out at 
the door where I was standing, and said, as he entered the lobby: 
' By God, I would have given 500 guineas for a single vote ' ; for 
one would have divided the House, and Robinson, was in the chair, 
who he knew would have negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left 
town that evening, and the next morning, before the meeting of the 
House, Colonel Peter Randolph, then of the Council, came to the 
Hall of Burgesses, and sat at the clerk's table till the House-bell 
rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a precedent 
for expunging a vote of the House, which, he said, had taken place 
while he was a member or clerk of the House, I do not recollect 
which. I stood by him at the end of the table a considerable part 
of the time, looking on, as he turned over the pages, but I do not 
recollect whether he found the erasure. In the meantime, some of 
the timid members, who had voted for the strongest resolution, had 
become alarmed ; and as soon as the House met, a motion was made 
and carried to expunge it from the journal. There being at that 
day but one printer, and he entirely under the control of the Gov- 
ernor, I do not know that the resolution ever appeared in print. 78 
I write this from memory, but the impression made on me at the 
time was such as to fix the fact's indelibly in my mind. I suppose 
the original journal was among those destroyed by the British, or 
its obliterated face might be appealed to. And here I will state, 
that Burk's statement of Mr. Henry's consenting to withdraw two 
resolutions, by way of compromise with his opponents is entirely 
erroneous. 79 

The statements of Henry and Jefferson regarding the 
passing of the resolutions are substantiated in their essen- 
tial details by Judge Paul Carrington, a member of the 
House of Burgesses from Charlotte County, and by Gover- 
nor Fauquier. In his letter of June 5, 1765, written to the 
Board of Trade, 80 Fauquier states that five resolutions were 

78 Mr. Jefferson's memory seems to have misled him here, as there 
were printed in the Williamsburg Gazette the four resolutions ap- 
pearing on the journal and two additional ones. See Henry, Patrick 
Henry, vol. i, p. 93. 

79 Wirt, Patrick Henry, vol. i, pp. 78-83- 

80 In Bancroft Transcripts, Library of Congress. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1 759 117 

passed on May 30, when only thirty-nine of the one hun- 
dred and sixteen members composing the House of Bur- 
gesses were present. He says that the " greatest majority " 
for any of the five resolutions was 5, and that the vote on 
the fifth resolution was only 20 for to 19 against. He con- 
tinues : 

On Friday, the 31st, there having happened a small alteration in 
the House, there was an attempt to strike all the Resolutions off 
the Journals. The 5th which was thought the most offensive was 
accordingly struck off, but it did not succeed as to the other four. 
I am informed that the gentlemen had two more resolutions in their 
pocket, but finding the difficulty they had in carrying the 5th which 
was only by a single voice, and knowing them to be more virulent 
and inflammatory; they did not produce them. The most strenuous 
opposers of this rash heat were the Speaker, the King's Attorney 
and Mr. Wythe; but they were overpowered by the young hot and 
giddy members. In the course of the debates I have heard that 
very indecent language was used by a Mr. Henry a young lawyer 
who had not been a month a Member of the House; who carried 
all the young Members with him ; so that I hope I am authorized 
in saying there is cause at least to doubt whether this would have 
been the sense of the Colony if more of their Representatives had 
done their duty by attending to the end of the Session. 

What had happened was that a new leader had appeared 
in the House of Burgesses, one gifted with a power of 
oratory so magical as to cause Jefferson to say of his talents 
that " they were great indeed ; such as I have not heard 
from any other man. He appeared to me to speak as 
Homer wrote." 81 But he was no less gifted in the fear- 
lessness and the capacity so necessary to real, progressive 
leadership, and by his stand on the Stamp Act question he 
assumed the direction of his colony, while his spirited reso- 
lutions called the faltering statesmen in other provinces to 
fight boldly for colonial rights. 82 

Throughout the colonies there seems to have been quiet 
and submissive acquiescence in the stamp tax legislation 
until Henry's resolutions fired the people of all the colonies 
into open resistance. Otis had completely receded from 
the position he had taken on the writs of assistance, and 
was advising submission to the Stamp Act in these words : 

81 P. L. Ford, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. i, p. 6. 

82 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, pp. 98-100. 



Il8 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

" It is the duty of all humbly and silently, to acquiesce in all 
decisions of the supreme legislature. Nine hundred and 
ninety-nine in a thousand of the colonists will never once 
entertain a thought but of submission to our Sovereign, and 
to the Authority of Parliament in all possible contingencies. 
They undoubtedly have the right to levy internal taxes on 
the colonies." Notwithstanding this position, which was 
shared by Oliver, the town of Boston reelected Otis to the 
Assembly and Oliver to the Council in the following May. 
Furthermore, the Assembly of Massachusetts, on Novem- 
ber 3, 1764, had stated that it yielded " obedience to the Act 
granting duties. " S3 In most of the other colonies the state 
of affairs was very similar to that in Massachusetts. 84 Yet 
even the conservative element in the Virginia Assembly had 
not questioned the right of the colony to lay its own inter- 
nal taxes, although they opposed Henry's resolutions as be- 
ing too bold a statement of these rights. We have seen that 
Robinson, Peyton Randolph, and Wythe, the leaders of the 
opposition to Henry's resolutions, the first named the recog- 
nized leader of the " prerogative " party, had strongly op- 
posed the stamp duties in the letter which they, as members 
of the committee of correspondence, had sent to the agent. 
Their opposition to the resolutions, therefore, was rather 
disapproval of the methods and language used by Henry 
than of the principles for which he fought. 

The next paper in the records of the committee is a letter 
from Montague, dated November 9, 1769, which is followed 
by four letters, dated January 10, 15 and 18, and February 
6, 1770, all of which show that the agent was keeping in 
close touch with the colonial situation and that he was com- 
municating to the committee intelligence of the proceedings 
of Parliament and the Administration. 85 In his letter of 

83 Bancroft, vol. v, pp. 271, 180. 

84 Bancroft, vol. v, pp. 272, 293, 271, 294; Henry, Patrick Henry, 
vol. i, p. 66; W. Gordon, The Independence of the United States, 
vol. i, pp. 117, 119, 120; T. F. Gordon, History of Pennsylvania, p. 
433 ; Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol. 
vii, p. 710. 

85 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xii, pp. 157-165. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1759 II9 

February 6 he notified the committee of the petition of the 
merchants of Bristol and London for a repeal of the act im- 
posing duties on paper, glass, painters' colors, and tea. The 
remaining letters from Montague are dated February 8, 
March 3, and March 6, 1770, and contain further informa- 
tion concerning the duties on tea. 86 

There seems to be only one other letter from the commit- 
tee of correspondence to the agent, and this referred to a 
congress of the Cherokee Indians, the proceedings of which 
Governor Botetourt had laid before the House of Burgesses. 
Reasons were given for a memorial which the Burgesses 
had presented to the governor, and which had been ob- 
jected to by John Stuart, the superintendent of Indian 
affairs. 87 

The act for appointing an agent and a committee of cor- 
respondence composed of members from both houses was 
passed in 1759 to continue for a term of seven years, and 
was continued and reenacted in April, 1766, for a term of 
five years from its expiration or until April, 1771. In 1772, 
in the spring session of the Assembly, the bill for appoint- 
ing an agent, after having been twice read in the House of 
Burgesses, was turned over to the committee of the whole 
house. On being reported back to the House without any 
amendment, it was rejected. 88 No reasons appear for this 
action either in the journals of the House of Burgesses or 
in any other material that has been examined in the prepa- 
ration of this study ; and any reason that may seem to ex- 
plain the refusal of the House of Burgesses to pass this 
measure must of necessity be in the nature of conjecture. 
However, it is well known that the leadership of the House 
of Burgesses had passed into the hands of younger and 
more radical men, who in 1773, at the next session of the 
Assembly, would create a committee of correspondence en- 
tirely under the control of the Lower House. 

During the years between 1765 and 1772 many changes 

86 Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, in Virginia 
Magazine of History, vol. xii, pp. 165-169. 

8 7 Ibid., pp. 357-364. 

88 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1770-1772, pp. 209-219. 



120 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

had taken place in the colony. Fauquier had been succeeded 
by Botetourt, who had in turn been replaced by Dunmore. 
Much of the unpleasantness of the bitter controversies be- 
tween the Virginia Assemblies and the British Administra- 
tion had been softened or removed by the personal popu- 
larity and the tactfulness of the two first named; but Dun- 
more, from the early days of his administration, seems to 
have constantly irritated the Assembly in almost every pos- 
sible way. Indeed, it is hardly stating the case too strongly 
to say that he was as tactless in stirring up strife and fric- 
tion between that body and himself as Fauquier and Bote- 
tourt had been careful in avoiding difficulties and in handling 
problems of strained relationship between themselves and 
the same body. At a time when the representatives of the 
House of Burgesses should have been met with conciliatory 
proposals England had sent them a governor who was arbi- 
trary, stubborn, and tactless. 

The change of governors was not the only difference in 
the Virginia situation ; great movements had taken place 
in the colony itself, and these changes had been reflected in 
the members of the House of Burgesses. Younger and more 
progressive leaders had wrested control from the hands of the 
older and more conservative members, who had for so many 
years directed the affairs and shaped the policies of the 
legislature ; and even the conservatives in many instances 
had become more liberal with the realization that England 
had determined to carry through her policy of colonial taxa- 
tion at any cost. The bitter fight over the Stamp Act 
resolutions, resulting in the victory of Henry, aided by the 
young " up-country " element, had been a heavy blow to the 
older and more conservative members of the House of Bur- 
gesses, whose strength was drawn from the " Tidewater 
aristocracy," the wealthy landed proprietors and large slave- 
holding class in the colony. Jefferson, who in 1769 had be- 
come a member of the House of Burgesses, said of the 
fight for the resolutions against the Stamp Act : " By these 
resolutions and his manner of supporting them, Mr. Henry 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1759 121 

took the lead out of the hands of those who had heretofore 
guided the proceedings of the House; that is to say, of 
Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, and Randolph." 89 

This, however, was not the only defeat suffered by the old 
leaders in the later years of the sixties. In May, 1765. a 
loan scheme, supported by the political adherents of the 
speaker, John Robinson, treasurer of the colony, and thought 
by some to have been designed to cover up unauthorized 
loans 90 made by Robinson from the public funds, was passed 
by the House over the opposition of Henry, who opposed 
the measure on general principles, although it does not seem 
to have been publicly known that there was any shortage 
in Robinson's accounts. This scheme was disallowed by 
the Council at a conference with the committee sent up 
from the House. 91 This was followed on Friday, Novem- 
ber 7, 1766, by the appointment in the House of Burgesses 
of a committee to examine into the state of the treasury. 
Before this committee had reported, a resolution was intro- 
duced in the House asking that the offices of speaker 
and treasurer be separated ; and this proposal was carried 
by a vote of 68 to 2Cj. 92 Robinson had died on May 
11, 1766, and the report of the irregularities in his accounts 
made by the committee on December 12, 1766, is substan- 
tiated by the memorial of the administrators of his estate, 
laid before the House on the same day. 93 When the bill 
for dividing the offices of speaker and treasurer came up 
before the House, it was the occasion of a warm discussion 
between the friends of the speaker, led by Edmund Pendle- 
ton, who stoutly opposed the measure, and the forces favor- 
ing the bill, who were led by Patrick Henry and Richard 
Henry Lee. The bill passed, and the result of the contest 
was to bind Lee and Henry together in the closest friend- 
ship ; but the animosities engendered by the struggle " lasted 
for years, and were shown in the conduct of the defeated 

89 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, pp. 86-87. 

90 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1761-1765, p. 350. 

91 Ibid., p. 356. 

92 Ibid., 1766-1769, pp. 14, 24. 

93 Ibid., pp. 65, 66, 67. 



122 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

party toward Lee and Henry on more than one occasion." 94 
A salary was provided for the office of speaker as a result 
of the passage of this bill, and this fact rendered the new 
speaker more the servant of the House. The treatment re- 
ceived by Henry about half a decade later at the hands of 
the committee of safety seems to have been the aftermath 
of these legislative battles with Pendleton. 

A short period of quiet followed the repeal of the Stamp 
Act. During the year 1767 there was one meeting of the 
Assembly, and in this session there appears little of a revo- 
lutionary nature. On March 24 Mr. Bland laid before the 
House of Burgesses a letter and some papers received from 
the agent since the adjournment of the last meeting of the 
Assembly. These papers were referred to the committee 
appointed to examine into the state of the colony. On April 
7 the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, 
and it was ordered that an address to the king be prepared 
asking his assent to a scheme for issuing a supply of paper 
money sufficient to meet the need of the colony of a circu- 
lating medium. A committee was appointed to draw up 
this address and to prepare a scheme for emitting paper cur- 
rency. The address and the scheme were reported back to 
the House on April 11 and were passed by that body. It 
was ordered that the address be transcribed and transmitted 
to the agent for presentation to the king. A copy of the cur- 
rency scheme was also included, and Montague was re- 
quested to make inquiry whether a sum of money could be 
borrowed on the plan. 95 

In the session of the Assembly for 1768 we find that at 
the first day's meeting it was ordered that the committee of 
correspondence lay before the House the letters from the 
agent and the proceedings of the committee since the last 
session of the Assembly. This order was complied with at 
the next day's sitting. 90 During this session a letter was 

94 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, p. in. 

95 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 93, 125, 127, 
128, 129. 

96 Ibid., pp. 143, 144. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND 1759 1 23 

laid before the House that had been received from the 
speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. 
This letter was dated February n, and copies had been sent 
to the speakers of each colonial house of representatives ask- 
ing them to concur with the Massachusetts representatives 
in their application for redress. 97 Petitions had also been 
received from the freeholders of the counties of Westmore- 
land, Chesterfield, Henrico, Dinwiddie, Amelia, and Prince 
William 08 asking that the House of Burgesses take the 
grievances of the colonies under consideration, and pray- 
ing for a petition to the king for a repeal of the oppressive 
acts of Parliament. All of these matters were referred to 
the committee of the whole house, with the result that a 
petition to the king and a memorial and remonstrance to 
each of the Houses of Parliament were adopted by the 
House of Burgesses and concurred in by the Council. It 
was ordered that Montague should act in conjunction with 

97 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 143, 145. 

98 Ibid., pp. 145, 146, 148. The text of the Prince William repre- 
sentation, which is fairly typical of the other petitions, is given in 
the Journals in substance by the clerk of the House, and is as fol- 
lows : " A Representation of the Freeholders of Prince William 
County, whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to 
the House, and read setting forth, that it is with the greatest' Con- 
cern they find the same unconstitutional Measures now pursued by 
the British Parliament, as gave rise to the late abhorred and detest- 
able Stamp Act, which would have shackled the North Americans 
with Slavery, had they submitted to the Execution thereof: That 
Notwithstanding it is the undoubted Right of every Subject of 
Britain to be taxed only by Consent of Representatives chosen by 
themselves, which hath been ratified and confirmed to them during 
the Reigns of nine successive Princes; yet contrary to Magna 
Charta, and the Charters granted to the several Colonies in America, 
the Parliament hath again assumed to themselves the Right of lay- 
ing Taxes and Impositions on the People of America by the several 
Acts for imposing certain Duties on British Commodities, for the 
purpose of raising a Revenue here the Billeting Act and the Act for 
depriving the New York Assembly of a Legislative Power, until 
they have complied with the Impositions of the Billeting Act; so 
that they have not only taken from the said Subscribers their Money 
without their Consents, but deprive them of their Liberty and Con- 
stitutional Rights as Freemen, which Freedom and Privileges they 
have hitherto equally enjoyed with their Fellow-Subjects in Britain: 
And therefore intreating the House to assert their Right's with 
decent Freedom ; and to supplicate their most Gracious Sovereign 
to have their Grievances redressed by the Repeal of the said several 
late oppressive Acts." 



124 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Abercrombie, the agent for the governor and the Council, in 
obtaining the ends desired. It was also resolved that the 
speaker should deliver copies of the same to President Blair 
of the Council, who since the death of Fauquier had been 
ex-officio governor, and desire him to transmit the same to 
the principal secretary of state appointed to manage the 
affairs of North America." 

In regard to the letter from the Massachusetts House of 
Representatives it was resolved unanimously 

That Mr Speaker be directed to write to the Speaker of the hon- 
orable House of Representatives of the Province of the Massachu- 
setts Bay to desire he would inform that House that his Letter of 
February nth, 1768 written by their Direction and in their Name 
had been considered by this House that we could not but applaud 
them for their Attention to American Liberty and that the Steps we 
had taken thereon would convince them of our Opinion of the fatal 
Tendency of the Acts of Parliament complained of and of our fixed 
Resolution to concur with the other Colonies in their Application 
for Redress. 

The speaker was also directed to write to " the respective 
Speakers of the Assemblies and Representatives on this 
Continent to make known to them our [the Burgesses'] Pro- 
ceedings on this Subject and to intimate how necessary we 
think it is that the Colonies should unite in a firm but decent 
Opposition to every Measure which may affect the Rights 
and Liberties of the British Colonies in America." 100 

Here was a case where the letter was written directly to 
the speaker of the House of Burgesses ; and as the Assembly 
was in session and considered the matter therein treated, 
there was no reason for its answer to be referred to the 
committee of correspondence. It was in the recess between 
the meetings of the Assembly that a committee for communi- 
cation was most needed, and we have seen that its proceed- 
ings were regularly laid before the Assembly at each session. 
When the period between the sessions of the Assembly was 
long, the work of the committee was of necessity such that 
its members had to act more on their own initiative and re- 

89 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 157, 161, 
163, 165-171, 173, 174. 
100 Ibid., p. 174. 



COMMITTEES OF I773 AND I759 1 25 

sponsibility. When the sessions of the Assembly were close 
together the committee was guided largely by instructions 
given it by that body. 

The first session of the Assembly for the year 1769 
opened with the promise of being a peaceful meeting. Both 
Governor Botetourt's address at the opening of the session 
and the reply from the House of Burgesses seemed to in- 
dicate a harmonious period of legislative work ; but this 
state of affairs did not continue very long, and ten days 
after its meeting the governor prorogued the Assembly. 
On the first day of the session the speaker notified the 
House " that according to the Direction of the House last 
Session of the General Assembly, he had written to the re- 
spective Speakers of the Assemblies and Representatives on 
this Continent, upon the Subject of sundry Acts of the 
British Parliament, and had received several Letters in 
Answer thereto ; " and it was ordered that these letters 
should be laid on the clerk's table, where they could be read 
by the members of the House. It was further ordered that 
the letters " which had passed between the Committee of 
Correspondence, and the Agent for this Colony, for the last 
Five Years, and the Papers they refer to, be laid before 
the House." 101 

These letters were considered by the committee of the 
whole house ; its report to the House of Burgesses contained 
the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted : 

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that the sole 
Right of imposing Taxes on the Inhabitants of this his Majesty's 
Colony and Dominion of Virginia, is now, and ever hath been, 
legally and constitutionally vested in the House of Burgesses, law- 
fully convened according to the ancient and established Practice, 
with the Consent of the Council, and of his Majesty, the King of 
Great-Britain, or his Governor, for the Time being. 

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that it is the 
undoubted Privilege of the Inhabitants of this Colony, to petition 
their Sovereign for Redress of Grievances ; and that it is lawful and 
expedient to procure the Concurrence of his Majesty's other Colo- 
nies, in dutiful Addresses, praying the royal Interposition in Favour 
of the Violated Rights of America. 

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that all Trials 

101 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 189, 190, 209. 



126 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

for Treason, Misprison of Treason, or for any Felony or Crime 
whatsoever, committed and done in this Majesty's said Colony and 
Dominion, by any Person or Persons residing therein, ought of 
Right to be had, and conducted in and before his Majesty's Courts, 
held within the said Colony, according to the fixed and known 
Course of Proceeding; and that the seizing any Person or Persons 
residing in this Colony, suspected of any Crime whatsoever, com- 
mitted therein, and sending such Person, or Persons, to Places be- 
yond the Sea, to be tried, is highly derogatory to the Rights of 
British Subjects; as thereby the inestimable Privilege of being tried 
by a jury from the Vicinage, as well as the Liberty of summoning 
and producing Witnesses on such Trial will be taken away from 
the Party accused. 

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Committee, that an hum- 
ble, dutiful, and loyal Address, be presented to his Majesty, to assure 
him of our inviolable Attachment to his sacred Person and Govern- 
ment; and to beseech his royal Interposition, as the Father of all 
his people, however remote from the Seat' of his Empire, to quiet 
the Minds of his Subjects of this Colony, and to avert from them, 
those Dangers and Miseries which will ensue, from the seizing and 
carrying beyond Sea, any Persons residing in America, suspected 
of any Crime whatsoever, to be tried in any other Manner, than by 
the ancient and long established Course of Proceeding. 

It was ordered that the speaker should, without delay, 
transmit to the speaker of each of the several houses of 
Assembly a copy of these resolutions, and that he should 
request their concurrence in the same. A committee was 
also appointed to draw up the address to the king agreed on 
in the fourth resolution. 102 

On the next day, May 17, it was ordered by the House 
of Burgesses that the resolutions of the Lords Spiritual 
and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, and also the ad- 
dress of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, 
in Parliament assembled, to His Majesty, transmitted to 
the committee of correspondence by the agent in his letters 
of December 16, 1768, and February 18, 1769, should be 
printed in the Virginia Gazette ; and it was further ordered 
that the four resolutions of the committee of the whole 
house, subsequently adopted by the House of Burgesses, 
should be published in the same paper. It was also voted 
that the address to the king, which had been reported by 
the committee appointed to prepare it and had been adopted 
without a dissenting vote by the House, should be sent to 

102 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 214-215. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1759 1 27 

the agent for the colony, " with Directions to cause the same 
to be presented to his Most Excellent Majesty; and after- 
wards to be printed and published in the English Papers." 
On this same day the governor, having heard of the resolu- 
tions of the Burgesses, immediately dissolved the Assem- 
bly. 103 

Directly after this dissolution the members of the House 
of Burgesses, " judging it necessary " that some action 
should be taken to relieve their " distressed Situation, and 
for preserving the true and essential Interests of the Col- 
ony," resolved upon a meeting, and they repaired at once to 
the house of Anthony Hay. Peyton Randolph was ap- 
pointed moderator, by a unanimous vote of the members 
present, and it was decided that " a regular Association 
should be formed." A committee was appointed " to pre- 
pare the necessary and most proper Regulations for that 
Purpose," after which the meeting adjourned until the fol- 
lowing day. At this meeting the committee reported an 
association -by the terms of which the subscribers to the 
agreement promised to abstain from the use of those ar- 
ticles of trade imported from Europe, specified therein, 
upon which the British Parliament had laid a tax. This 
agreement was unanimously adopted, and was signed by 
the eighty-eight burgesses present, by the clerk to the asso- 
ciation, and by nineteen other citizens, who signed in accord- 
ance with the invitation in the preamble. 104 This action of 
the Virginia Assembly was followed by several of the other 
colonies, whose assemblies approved the Virginia resolu- 
tions of May 16, and in some cases adopted them verbatim. 105 

The session of the Assembly for November and Decem- 
ber, 1769, was a peaceful one. In his opening address the 
governor notified the Assembly that he had received assur- 
ances from the Earl of Hillsborough "that his Majesty's 
present Administration have at no Time entertained a De- 

103 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. 215, 216, 218. 

104 Minutes of the Association of 1769, printed copy in the Vir- 
ginia State Library. Reprinted in Introduction to Journal of the 
House of Burgesses, 1766-1769, pp. xxxix-xliii. 

105 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, p. 142. 



128 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

sign to propose to Parliament to lay any further Taxes upon 
America for the purpose of raising a Revenue, and that it is 
their intention to propose in the next Session of Parliament, 
to take off the Duties upon Glass, Paper, and Colours, upon 
Consideration of such Duties having been laid contrary to 
the true Principles of Commerce." 106 This assurance that 
the objectionable duties would be removed, together with the 
fact that much legislation was needed to replace what had 
expired or had been neglected during the period of excite- 
ment following the Stamp Act, tended to make the session 
a quiet but busy one. 

On Friday, November 10, the speaker reported that he 
had transmitted to the speakers of the several assemblies of 
the American colonies copies of the resolutions agreed to by 
the House, requesting their concurrence therein ; and that 
he had received letters on that subject from the speakers 
of several of the said assemblies. He had also transmitted 
to the agent the address to the king, with proper directions, 
and had received the reply of that official. These letters 
were laid on the table, together with the letters that had 
passed between the committee of correspondence and the 
agent since the seventeenth day of the last May, so that 
they might be read by the members. 107 

In the session of the Assembly for 1770 there was little 
of a revolutionary tendency. Governor Botetourt seems to 
have been on good terms with the members of the House of 
Burgesses and to have won their friendship and respect. 
On June 30, 1770, he wrote to the secretary of state as fol- 
lows regarding the session of the Assembly which had just 
closed : 

Upon Thursday the 28th of June I prorogued the Assembly of 
this Dominion to Thursday the 25th of October next after having 
passed 46 Bills and rejected one on account of money's being to be 
issued by that Act without my warrant, am convinced that the omis- 
sion happened by mistake, but for fear of the precedent I refusing 
passing the Bill and told my reasons- The House of Burgesses 
have directed that their Agent do lay before his Maj'ty an humble 

106 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1766-1760, pp. 226, 227. 

107 Ibid., p. 240. 



COMMITTEES OF 1773 AND lj$9 120, 

petition, in which they pray for a total repeal of the Act which 
granted certain duties for the purpose of raising a Revenue, and 
beg to be relieved from hardships to which they apprehend them- 
selves improperly liable from his Maj'ty's Courts of Vice-Admi- 
ralty- Many of them have likewise signed the inclosed association : 
If I am rightly informed we are chiefly indebted for both these 
measures to the Patriots of England, the Merchants and Factors 
residing in this Country having been pressed by letters from home 
to promote distress to their Mother Country by all possible means. 108 

In this letter he enclosed to the home government a copy 
of the association entered into by the gentlemen of the House 
of Burgesses and the body of merchants assembled in Wil- 
liamsburg, June 22, 1770. This association was signed by 
one hundred and sixty persons, and numerous copies were 
circulated throughout the colony, 109 receiving the signatures 
of many subscribers. One feature of the association that 
was afterwards used with great success by the county com- 
mittees of 1774 and 1775 was the creation of a committee 
in each county whose duty it should be to look out for vio- 
lations of the aims of the association and to publish the 
names of all offenders, with an account of their conduct. 
However, the plan outlined by the associators does not seem 
at this time to have worked in a satisfactory manner, 110 
though it was later used with marked success. William 
Nelson, who upon Botetourt's death became acting governor, 
credits its failure to the defection of the northern provinces. 

During this session of the General Assembly the usual in- 
spection of the proceedings and letters of the committee of 
correspondence is shown by the fact that on May 23 these 
papers were laid before the House. On June 27 the peti- 
tion to the king voted by the House of Burgesses, asking 
the repeal of the colonial revenue acts, was delivered to the 
committee for transmission to the agent with instructions 
that " after it shall be presented, or offer to be presented, 

108 Letter from Botetourt to the Secretary of State, in Bancroft 
Transcripts, Library of Congress. 

109 Copy of the Association, in Manuscript Division, Library of 
Congress. 

110 Letter from Acting-Governor Nelson to Lord Hillsborough, 
December 19, 1770, in Bancroft Transcripts, Library of Congress. 



I3O THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

that he procure it to be printed and published in the English 
Papers." 111 

The short session of July, 1771, following the death of 
Governor Botetourt, was convened by William Nelson, 
president of the Council, who pending the appointment of 
a successor to Governor Botetourt was ex-officio governor. 
In the journal of this session there is no allusion to the com- 
mittee of correspondence. A recent flood, the worst re- 
corded in the history of the colony, had occasioned great loss 
to the people of Virginia. Especially had the owners of to- 
bacco which was stored in the public warehouses, built for 
convenience of transportation at landings on the great rivers, 
lost heavily ; and most of the session was taken up with the 
passing of relief legislation. 112 

During this session there was much agitation of the ques- 
tion of establishing an American Episcopate. In some of 
the northern colonies this measure was warmly advocated 
by the press ; and the effort of New York and New Jersey 
to petition the king in favor of the project caused Dr. Cooper 
and Dr. McKean to visit the southern colonies to seek their 
cooperation. Although this visit resulted in a convocation, 
of the Virginia clergy, only a few attended. Reverend John 
Camm, who had been such a vigorous opponent of the Two 
Penny Act, took a prominent part in its proceedings, and was 
one of those who joined in the petition to the Crown. Four 
of the clergy present at this meeting, however, entered a 
protest against the scheme of introducing a bishopric, ar- 
guing that such action would endanger the existence of the 
British Empire in America ; and Messrs. Henley, Gwatkin, 
Hewitt, and Bland, the authors of this protest, received a 
unanimous vote of thanks from the House of Burgesses. 113 

Dunmore, soon after to become the governor of Virginia, 
issued a proclamation on October 12, iyji, dissolving the 

111 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1770-1772, p. 102. 

112 Ibid., pp. 119-136. 

113 Ibid., pp. xxxi-xxxii (Introduction), p. 122; Campbell, pp. 
561-562; Letter from Richard Bland, in Virginia Magazine of His- 
tory and Biography, vol. vi, pp. 127-134. 



COMMITTEES OF 1 773 AND 1759 I 3 1 

Assembly, which had been prorogued at the close of the last 
session to meet again on the fourth Thursday of October. 
This dissolution had no effect save to elicit indisputable 
proof that the House of Burgesses had reflected the senti- 
ments of the people ; for there was practically no change in 
the personnel of the members elected to the new Assembly, 
the roster showing only four changes in the entire body of 
members. After the election of the new House of Bur- 
gesses, Dunmore, by five proclamations, postponed their 
meeting to February 10, 1772. 114 

At the session of February-April, 1772, as has been al- 
ready pointed out, a bill was introduced to reenact the law 
appointing the agent and the committee of correspondence. 
This bill was defeated at its second reading, after having 
been considered for several days, recommitted to the com- 
mittee of the whole house, and reported back by them with- 
out amendment. During the period in which this bill was 
considered the correspondence and proceedings of the com- 
mittee from the time of its appointment in 1759 was laid 
before the House for consideration. No evidence appears 
in the journals to show why the bill was rejected ; and as the 
debates on measures were not recorded, it is impossible to 
give with any degree of certainty the reasons why the com- 
mittee was not reappointed. It is only in the light of 
after events that an inference may be drawn, which ap- 
pears to be at least reasonable. It is certain that the 
opposition to the measure developed during its second read- 
ing, for it was at that time that it was sent back to the com- 
mittee of the whole. It does not seem unlikely that the at- 
tempt was made to appoint a committee of correspondence 
which should be under the entire control of the House of 
Burgesses, and that this attempt was defeated in the com- 
mittee and the bill was voted down by the whole house. 
This explanation seems all the more plausible in the light 
of the fact that in its next session the House of Burgesses 

114 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1770-1772, pp. 144-153. 



I32 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

appointed just such a committee of correspondence. It is 
easy to understand why the House of Burgesses should 
prefer a committee entirely under its own control, for Dun- 
more had become governor, and the Council would be, of 
necessity, in his power. The House of Burgesses had al- 
ready learned that little more than irritating interference 
could be expected from a governor of Dunmore's type. 



CHAPTER IV 

The Committee of Correspondence and the First Con- 
tinental Congress 

The situation at the opening of the year 1772 had been 
hopeful for those who looked for conciliation and an easing 
of strained relations between the mother-country and her 
colonies. The claim of Parliament of the right of taxation 
had not been very strictly enforced; and the colonies had 
fought the existing revenue act by a refusal to buy the 
taxed articles. The question of taxation ceased to be agi- 
tated to any very great extent, and the kindly relations be- 
tween England and America would probably have been re- 
newed " had not the Administration kept up a series of most 
irritating measures." The Assembly of Massachusetts was 
not allowed to meet at Boston, the place of meeting being 
changed to Cambridge. The assemblies that refused to 
obey the orders of the administration, however unusual or 
oppressive these orders might be, were promptly dissolved. 
Arbitrary and even dishonest men were appointed to posi- 
tions of power in the provinces, and were paid out of the 
English treasury to render them independent. In Georgia 
the speaker elected by the Assembly was rejected by the 
governor, and in all of the colonies royal instructions were 
put above law and precedents of colonial government. This 
was against the spirit of the British constitution as con- 
strued by the Court of King's Bench, presided over by Lord 
Mansfield, which had held that where there was a colonial 
assembly the king's prerogative did not extend to the mak- 
ing or altering of laws. 1 

When Dunmore prorogued the Assembly in April, 1772, 

1 Henry, Patrick Henry, vol. i, pp. 154, 155; Cowper's Reports, 204, 
Campbell v. Hall. 

133 



134 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

he had stated that it would be reassembled on June 25, fol- 
lowing; but it was not until March 4, 1773, that the House 
of Burgesses was called together, after several prorogations. 
On March 12 the House resolved itself into a committee of 
the whole upon the state of the colony ; and in this commit- 
tee Dabney Carr, a representative from Louisa County, 
moved the following resolutions, which were reported favor- 
ably by the committee and were unanimously adopted by 
the House of Burgesses : 

Whereas the minds of his Majesty's faithful Subjects in this 
Colony have been much disturbed by various Rumours and Reports 
of proceedings tending to deprive them of their ancient, legal and 
constitutional Rights. 

And whereas, the affairs of this Colony are frequently connected 
with those of Great Britain, as well as of the neighboring Colonies, 
which renders a Communication of Sentiments necessary; in Order 
therefore to remove the Uneasiness, and to quiet the minds of the 
People, as well as for other good purposes above mentioned. 

Be it resolved, that a standing Committee of Correspondence and 
inquiry be appointed to consist of eleven Persons, to wit, the Hon- 
ourable Peyton Randolph, Esquire, Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard 
Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendle- 
ton, Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald Cary, 
and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, any six of whom to be a Com- 
mittee, whose business it shall be to obtain the most early and 
Authentic intelligence of all such Acts and Resolutions of the 
British Parliament, or proceedings of Administration, as may relate 
to or affect the British Colonies in America, and to keep up and 
maintain a Correspondence and Communication with our Sister 
Colonies, respecting these important Considerations ; and the result 
of such their proceedings, from Time to Time, to lay before this 
House. 

Resolved, that it be an instruction to the said Committee, that they 
do, without delay, inform themselves particularly of the principles 
and Authority, on which was constituted a Court of inquiry, said 
to have been lately held in Rhode Island, with Powers to transmit 
Persons, accused of Offences committed in America, to places be- 
yond the Seas, to be tried. 2 

After these resolutions had been favorably voted upon, it 
was resolved that the speaker should transmit copies to the 
speakers of the various houses of assembly in America, with 
the request that the resolutions be laid before their respec- 
tive houses and that they appoint from their number simi- 
lar committees to communicate, from time to time, with the 
Virginia committee. 

2 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 28. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS I 35 

This is all that the Journal of the House of Burgesses 
shows us concerning the appointment of the new committee 
of correspondence; we must therefore turn elsewhere for 
information regarding the motives that lay behind its crea- 
tion. Fortunately, Jefferson, who was one of the commit- 
tee, has left us an account of the steps that led up to its 
formation. 

Not thinking our old & leading members up to the point of for- 
wardness & zeal which the times required, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, 
Francis L. Lee, Mr. Carr & myself agreed to meet' in the evening 
in a private room of the Raleigh to consult on the state of things. 
There may have been a member or two more whom I do not recol- 
lect. We were all sensible that the most urgent of all measures 
was that of coming to an understanding with all the other colonies 
to consider the British claims as a common cause to all, & to produce 
an unity of action: and for this purpose that a comm[itt]ee of cor- 
respond [en] ce in each colony would be the best instrument for 
intercommunication : and that their first measure would probably 
be to propose a meeting of deputies from every colony at some cen- 
tral place, who should be charged with the direction of the measures 
which should be taken by all. We therefore drew up the resolu- 
tions. . . . The consulting members proposed to me to move them, 
but I urged that it should be done by Mr. Carr, my friend & brother 
in law, then a new member to whom I wished an opportunity should 
be given of making known to the house his great worth & talents. 
It was so agreed ; he moved them, they were agreed to nem. con. 
and a comm[itt]ee of correspondence appointed of whom Peyton 
Randolph, the Speaker, was chairman. 3 

The importance of this committee and the results that it 
might accomplish in welding the colonies together seem to 
have been clearly recognized by these representatives who 
made it possible. Indeed, the promptness with which the 
suggestion of the House of Burgesses was followed by the 
other colonial assemblies shows that they too were cog- 
nizant of the need of just such a means of intercolonial 
communication. Dunmore seems to have been about the 
only person who did not see the true meaning of this move. 
On March 31, just after he had prorogued the Assembly, he 
wrote a letter to Lord Dartmouth, in which he gave an ac- 
count of the session just closed, and said of the resolutions 
appointing this committee of correspondence : " Your Lordp 
will observe, there are some resolves wch show a little ill 

3 P. L. Ford, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. i, pp. 7-8. 



I36 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

humour in the House of Burgesses, but I thought them so 
insignificant that I took no matter of notice of them." 4 

Only one meeting of the newly created committee was 
held in this short session ; for the Assembly was prorogued 
on the twelfth day of its sitting, on account of an address 5 
to the governor from the House of Burgesses protesting 
against the irregular procedure used by him in the trial of 
persons in Pittsylvania County suspected of forging the 
paper currency. 6 This meeting was held on March 13, the 
day after the creation of the committee, and the minutes 
show that nine of the eleven members were present, Henry 
and Pendleton being absent. John Tazewell was appointed 
clerk to the committee, and was ordered to keep " a fair 
Record of the Proceedings thereof from Time to Time." 
Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, and Dudley 
Digges, all three of whom had served on the committee of 
correspondence created in 1759, were appointed a select 
corresponding committee, and were directed to request the 
speakers of the assemblies of the colonies of Rhode Island, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York to furnish the 
committee of correspondence with a full account of the court 
of inquiry said to have been lately held in Rhode Island, to- 
gether with an authentic copy of their commission and pro- 
ceedings. 7 

The select committee was also instructed to procure copies 
of an act of Parliament, entitled "An Act for the better 
preserving his Majesty's Dock-Yards, Magazines, Ships, 
Ammunition and Stores," 8 of all the other acts of Parliament 
which " now are or hereafter may be passed " relating to the 
affairs of the British colonies in America, and of the Jour- 
nals of the House of Commons from the session of 1765- 

4 Letter from Dunmore to Lord Dartmouth, Bancroft Transcript's, 
1752-1773, Library of Congress. 

5 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 22, 33. 

6 Ibid., pp. 22, 33, and Introduction, pp. viii-xi. 

7 This was the special court appointed to investigate the burning 
of the Gaspee. See letter from R. H. Lee to John Dickinson, April 
4. 1773, hi J. C. Ballagh, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, vol. i, 
pp. 83-84. 

8 Statutes at Large of England and Great Britain, vol. vii, p. 156. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS I 37 

1766 to the last session held. It was ordered to transmit 
immediately to the speakers of the other assemblies copies 
of the "Act for making it Felony to forge the Paper Cur- 
rency of the other Colonies," 9 and to ask their cooperation 
in such legislation. The select corresponding committee 
was authorized and empowered to call meetings of the com- 
mittee of correspondence " whenever any Emergency " 
might require immediate action. 10 

On April 6, 1773, there was a meeting in Williamsburg 
of the select committee of correspondence. A letter to Mr. 
John Norton, a merchant of London, was prepared asking 
him to become the confidential correspondent of the com- 
mittee. Mr. Norton was requested to secure copies of the 
acts of Parliament and of the journals of the House of 
Commons. Letters were also written to the speakers of the 
assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 
and New York requesting an account of the proceedings in 
the Gaspee affair. A copy of the new Virginia act of As- 
sembly against counterfeiting the paper currency of other 
colonies was enclosed. Letters enclosing the above act were 
also sent to the speakers of the assemblies of South Caro- 
lina, Delaware, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, and these 
colonies were asked to cooperate with Virginia by the pas- 
sage of reciprocal legislation in regard to the paper cur- 
rency. 11 

In the appointment of John Norton as English corre- 
spondent there is to be noticed a striking similarity in the 
operations of this committee to the work of the older com- 
mittee of correspondence. The older act had created both 
the agent and the committee, while the latter had been given 
the power to select its own agent. In the case of both com- 
mittees the correspondence was conducted in the same man- 
ner; but the second committee of correspondence, although 
granted a wider discretionary power than its earlier proto- 

9 Hening, vol. viii, p. 651. 

10 Minutes of the Committee of Correspondence, in Journals of 
the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 41. 

11 Ibid., pp. 41-43. 



I38 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

type, was clearly under the control of the House of Bur- 
gesses, to which its correspondence had to be submitted. 

The records of the Virginia committee are nearly com- 
plete, being preserved in the Committee of Correspondence 
Papers in the Virginia Archives ; and although a few of the 
letters are missing, these have been supplied from the rec- 
ords of the other colonies which were parties to the corre- 
spondence. These letters and proceedings have been printed 
in the Journals of the House of Burgesses following the 
sessions of the year to which the correspondence belongs. 

The letters received by the committee during the year 1773 
show that nine other colonies adopted the suggestion of the 
Virginia House of Burgesses. The first colony to act on the 
Virginia resolutions was Rhode Island, whose House of 
Deputies, on May 7, appointed a standing committee of cor- 
respondence, consisting of Stephen Hopkins, Metcalf 
Bowler, Moses Brown, John Cole, William Bradford, Henry 
Ward, and Henry Merchant. 12 The Virginia Assembly 
was notified of their appointment in a letter from Metcalf 
Bowler, the speaker of the Rhode Island House of Depu- 
ties, written May 15, a little more than a week after the ap-. 
pointment of the committee. 13 The resolution appointing 
the committee closely follows in form that of the House of 
Burgesses. The House of Deputies, says the letter of the 
speaker, being thoroughly convinced that a firm union of 
the colonies was absolutely necessary for the preservation 
of their ancient, legal, and constitutional rights, and that the 
measures proposed by the House of Burgesses would greatly 
promote so desirable an end, had unanimously voted the ap- 
pointment of a committee of correspondence. Information 
on the Gaspee affair was sent not only to Virginia but to 
the other colonies as well. 

The Connecticut House of Representatives appointed 
their committee of correspondence on May 21, consisting of 

12 Minutes of the Committee of Correspondence, in Journals of 
the House of Burgesses, 1 773-1776, pp. 48-49", Colonial Records of 
the Colony of Rhode Island, vol. vii, pp. 227-228. 

13 Letter from Metcalf Bowler to Peyton Randolph. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS I 39 

the following members: Ebenezer Silliman, William Wil- 
liams, Benjamin Payne, Samuel Holden Parsons, Nathaniel 
Wayles, Silas Deane, Samuel Bishop, Joseph Trumbull, and 
Erastus Wolcott. Both the fact that the committee was ap- 
pointed after a consideration of the letter and of the resolu- 
tions of the Virginia House of Burgesses and the language 
of the resolutions clearly indicate the origin of the idea. 
The letter from the Connecticut speaker to the speaker of 
the Virginia House states that the suggestion of Virginia 
was readily adopted by the Connecticut legislature. 14 

On May 27 the House of Representatives of New Hamp- 
shire, acting on the resolutions and the letter, which had 
been communicated to them by the Virginia speaker and 
committee, resolved to appoint a committee of correspond- 
ence, consisting of John Wentworth, John Sherburne, Wil- 
liam Parker, John Giddings, Jacob Sheafe, Christopher Tap- 
pan, and John Pickering. Of this action Peyton Randolph 
was notified by a letter from John Wentworth, dated May 
27. 15 

On May 28 the House of Representatives of Massachu- 
setts, in a set of resolutions which closely follow those of 
Virginia in form and content, appointed the following com- 
mittee of correspondence: Thomas Cushing, John Hancock, 
William Phillips, William Heath, Joseph Hawley, James 
Warren, Richard Derby, Jr., Elbridge Gerry, Jerethmeel 
Bowers, Jedediah Foster, Daniel Leonard, Thomas Gardner, 
Jonathan Greenleaf, and James Prescott. Both in the reso- 
lutions appointing this committee of correspondence and in 
Cushing's letter of June 3 to the Virginia speaker there is 
ample evidence that it was to the suggestion and example 
of Virginia, and not to the local Massachusetts committees 
of correspondence, that the appointment of the intercolonial 
committees was due. 16 

The action of South Carolina, however, shows that the 
striking similarity between the intercolonial committee of 

14 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 52, 53. 

15 Ibid., pp. 49, 50. 

16 Ibid., pp. 50, 51. 



I4O THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

correspondence and the committee of communication with 
the agent was clearly recognized by the assembly of that 
colony. Instead of appointing a new committee, the resolu- 
tions provided " that Mr. Speaker and any eight of the other 
Members of the Standing Committee of Correspondence, be 
a Committee to enquire for and obtain Intelligence upon 
the several Matters mentioned in the said resolutions, and 
to correspond with the Committee, appointed by the said 
House of Burgesses, and Committees appointed or to be ap- 
pointed in our Sister Colonies respecting the same." South 
Carolina, the first of the southern colonies to act on the Vir- 
ginia resolutions, provided for the use of this committee for 
intercolonial correspondence on July 6, the second day of 
the first session after the receipt of the proposal. 

On September 10 the Commons House of Assembly of 
Georgia appointed the speaker and any five of its committee 
of correspondence to be a committee for intercolonial com- 
munication. Except for the difference in the size of the 
committee appointed, the action taken in Georgia was iden- 
tical with that in South Carolina. 17 

The committee of correspondence of Maryland was ap- 
pointed on October 15. The resolutions and letter of the 
Virginia House of Burgesses had been considered by the 
Lower House of the Maryland Assembly in its June session ; 
but before resolutions could be initiated, the Assembly was 
unexpectedly prorogued. There was no chance of appoint- 
ing the committee until another meeting of the Assembly, 
which was not held until October. Soon after this session 
opened the following committee of correspondence was 
chosen : Matthew Tilghman, John Hall, Thomas Johnson, 
William Paca, Samuel Chase, Edward Boyd, Matthias Ham- 
mond, Josias Beale, James Boyd Chamberlaine, Brice 
Thomas, Beale Worthington, and Joseph Sim. 18 

Only one of the middle colonies appointed a committee of 



17 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 60, 61 ; 
Smith, pp. 402-404; Commons House of Assembly Journals, vol. 
xxxix, part ii, pp. 25-27. 

18 Journals of the House of Eurgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 62-63. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS I4I 

correspondence in 1773. The House of Representatives of 
Delaware named on October 23 from its own members the 
following committee of correspondence: Caesar Rodney, 
George Read, Thomas McKean, John McKinley, and 
Thomas Robinson. In form and diction the Delaware reso- 
lutions follow closely those of Virginia. 19 

One other colonial legislature appointed a committee of 
correspondence in 1773. This was North Carolina, whose 
House of Assembly, after consideration of the letter of the 
Virginia House of Burgesses and also of several letters 
from the other colonies, " expressing their high approbation 
of and Concurrence with so salutary a measure," took ac- 
tion on December 8. The committee appointed by these 
resolutions consisted of Speaker John Harvey, and Messrs. 
Howe, Harnett, Hooper, Caswell, Vail, Ashe, Hewes, and 
Samuel Johnston of the Assembly. 20 

The Virginia committee received in 1773 two letters from 
John Cruger, speaker of the New York Assembly. One 
was in answer to Peyton Randolph's letter of March 19 en- 
closing the resolutions of the Virginia House of Burgesses 
of March 12, and stated that the matter would be laid be- 
fore the New York Assembly when it convened. The letter 
of April 24, in answer to the letter of the Virginia select 
committee of April 6, said that the New York Assembly 
had "no Committee of Correspondence of the same Kind 
with yours appointed," but that as soon as there should be 
a meeting of the Assembly the subject would be called to 
the attention of its members. 21 

In the papers of the Virginia committee there is also a 
letter from John Norton, the London correspondent. This 
letter bears date of July 6, 1773, and was written in answer 
to the letter of the select committee of April 6. Mr. Norton 
accepted the trust reposed in him by the committee, and 
stated that he had sent under favor of his friend, Benjamin 

19 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 58, 59- 

20 Ibid., pp. 63, 64; The Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 
ix, pp. 740, 74i. 

21 Journals of the House of Burgesses, I773-I776, p. 47- 



I42 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

Harrison, the information requested in their letter. In re- 
gard to the duties on tea he wrote : 

Our Present Parliament who are just prorogued have made such 
Strides toward Despotism for sometime past, with respect to the 
East India Company as well as America, that we have too much 
Reason to dread bad Consequences from such Proceedings. Some 
of my Friends in the India Direction tell me that they have 
Thoughts of sending a Quantity of Tea to Boston, New York, 
Philadelphia, Virginia & South Carolina, which Government > seems 
to approve, but they suspect their Motives are to make a Cat's Paw 
of the Company, and force them to establish the 3 d . p r . C e . Ameri- 
can Duty. I advised the Gentlemen not to think of sending their 
Tea till Government took off the Duty, as they might be well assured 
it would not be received on any other Terms, what their Resolu- 
tions, will be, time only will discover. 22 

Of all the colonies, Pennsylvania and New Jersey were 
the most backward in appointing intercolonial committees. 
In Pennsylvania the Assembly was presided over by Joseph 
Galloway, a man of decided Tory sympathies. His tardy 
acknowledgment of the receipt of the Virginia letter and 
resolutions, which had been sent to him on the 19th of 
March, was not written until September 25. The letter and 
resolutions had been laid before the Assembly ; but " as the 
present assembly must in a few Days be dissolved . . . and . 
any Measures they might adopt at this Time rendered, by 
the Dissolution ineffectual, they have earnestly recommended 
the Subject Matter of the Letter and Resolves of the House 
of Burgesses of Virginia to the Consideration of the suc- 
ceding Assembly." 23 No action was taken by New Jersey 
until the early part of 1774. 

Two other letters were received by the committee of cor- 
respondence of Virginia during the year 1773. On August 
10 the select committee of Connecticut wrote to find out 
what the procedure had been in Virginia in regard to writs 
of assistance. "That matter is now under the Considera- 
tion of the superior Court here, and as it is a matter of very 
great Importance to the Colonies in General, we wish your 
Answer, that the Proceedings that have been with you, and 
your candid and free Sentiments thereon, may be fully 

22 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 53, 54- 

23 Ibid., p. 56. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS I43 

known here." 24 The other letter, from the committee of 
Massachusetts, is a plea for the necessity of colonial union 
against the encroachments of the British Parliament. 25 

By the end of the year 1773 nine of the American colo- 
nies had followed the suggestion of the Virginia House of 
Burgesses by appointing intercolonial committees of corre- 
spondence, leaving three of the middle colonies — Pennsyl- 
vania, New York, and New Jersey — yet to take action in 
the matter. In none of these nine colonies is there any al- 
lusion to the local committees of correspondence, while 
both in form of the committees appointed and in the lan- 
guage of the resolutions making the appointment it is evi- 
dent that the committees were copied from that of Virginia. 

On January 6, 1774, the select committee met at Williams- 
burg. The Connecticut letter of the preceding August was 
considered and an answer prepared, which went into an 
able argument against the validity of the writs of assistance. 
The Virginia select committee, two of whom were able at- 
torneys, took issue with the opinion of William De Grey, 
the attorney-general of England. 26 

The committee held its next meeting on May 6, 1774, on 
the second day of the new session of the Assembly. The 
proceedings of the select committee were laid before the 
whole committee of correspondence, " together with the sev- 
eral Letters " which had been received from the different 
colonies, and it was ordered that the proceedings and let- 
ters should be laid before the House of Burgesses. 27 On 
May 25 the committee held another meeting, when a letter 
which had been received from the committee of New Jer- 
sey announcing its appointment was read and also ordered 
to be laid before the Lower House. 28 

According to order these matters were laid before the 
House on May 26, and consideration was fixed for the fol- 
lowing Thursday. It was further ordered that the clerk of 

24 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 55. 

25 Ibid., pp. 56, 57, 58. 

26 Ibid., pp. 135, 136, 137. 

27 Ibid., p. 137. 
2S Ibid., p. 138. 



144 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

the committee should transcribe its minutes and letters into 
a book. 29 Before the day appointed, however, the Assem- 
bly was suddenly prorogued. 

The House of Burgesses, fearing a dissolution if Dun- 
more did not like its proceedings, seems to have postponed 
the consideration of these papers purposely until the other 
business of the session could be concluded. On the receipt, 
however, of news of the Boston Port Bill, the House of Bur- 
gesses, on May 24, passed resolutions appointing a day of 
fasting and prayer ; and on May 26 Dunmore, hearing of the 
resolutions, dissolved the House, claiming that the language 
used in the order of that body was a reflection on the king. 30 

Jefferson gives in his memoir these facts concerning the 
action of the House of Burgesses : 

The lead in the House, on these subjects, being no longer left to 
the old members, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee, three or four 
other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself, agreeing that 
we must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massa- 
chusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures, 
in the council-chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. 
We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people 
from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events ;• 
and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and 
prayer would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. 
No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our 
distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had 
grown up. With the help, therefore of Rushworth, 31 whom we 
rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the 
Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution 
somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of 
June, on which the port-bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, 
humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us the 
evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our 
rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to mod- 
eration and justice. To give greater emphasis to our proposition, 
we agreed to wait the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose grave 
and religious character was more in unison with the tone of our 
resolution, and to solicit him to move it. We according went' to 
him in the morning. He moved it the same day; the 1st of June 
was proposed ; and it passed without opposition. 32 

29 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 130, 131. 

30 Ibid., pp. 124, 132; Virginia Gazette, May 26, 1774. The reso- 
lution appointing June 1 as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer 
was introduced by Robert Carter Nicholas, and was printed in the 
Virginia Gazette of May 26. 

31 J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, vol. iv, p. 494. 

32 Washington, Thomas Jefferson, vol. i, pp. 6-7 ; T. F. Gordon, 
History of Pennsylvania, p. 485. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 1 45 

On May 27, the day after the prorogation, eighty-nine 
members of the Assembly held a meeting in the Raleigh 
Tavern, and adopted an association which was signed by 
the members present, and afterwards by twenty-one citizens. 
Besides forming this non-intercourse association recom- 
mending the stopping of all trade relations with England 
until the repeal of the objectionable duties, the Burgesses 
instructed the committee of correspondence to communicate 
" with their several corresponding committees, on the ex- 
pediency of appointing deputies from the several colonies 
of British America, to meet in general congress, at such 
place annually as shall be thought most convenient ; there to 
deliberate on those general measures which the united in- 
terests of America may from time to time require." 33 These 
instructions were carried out by the committee of corre- 
spondence at the meeting of May 28, when a circular letter 
was written to the committees of Pennsylvania, New York, 
Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
necticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Georgia ; and these letters were sent by the 
same day's post. 34 

The select committee met on May 31, when " several Let- 
ters from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bay " 
were laid before the committee. It was resolved that a 
letter should be immediately prepared to the North Carolina 
committee, enclosing copies of these letters and papers, with 
the request that these be forwarded to the two more south- 
ern colonies, with report of their own action. 

A letter 35 was also prepared and sent to the Maryland 
committee in reply to theirs of the 25th of May which had 
enclosed the letter and resolutions from Boston. It was 
stated that the moderator of the association, Peyton Ran- 
dolph, had at once called a meeting of as many of the bur- 
gesses as could be reached. Although most of the repre- 
sentatives had returned to their respective counties, yet 

33 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. xiii-xv. 

34 Ibid., p. 138. 

35 Ibid., pp. 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148. 
10 



I46 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

twenty-five of them had come together on May 30, when 
they had passed a resolution that there be held a conven- 
tion of the representatives of the House of Burgesses in 
Williamsburg on August 1, 1774. 36 

On August 4, during the session of this Virginia conven- 
tion, which was composed of the duly elected members of 
the House of Burgesses, the select committee of correspond- 
ence held a meeting and prepared letters to the committees 
of Maryland and Pennsylvania notifying them that Virginia 
had elected her delegates to a congress. As the convention 
was still in session and had not finished its deliberations, 
the whole proceedings could not, at that time, be trans- 
mitted. 

This convention 37 was in session from August 1 to August 
5, and the result of its deliberations was the adoption of an 
association containing provisions for a non-importation 
agreement to become effective after November 1, 1774, and 
a non-exportation agreement to go into effect on the 10th 
of August, 1775, if American grievances were not redressed 
by that time. To see that the provisions of these agree- 
ments should be complied with, committees of observation 
were to be appointed in each county, whose duty it should 
be to report violations of the association. I hope to treat 
the work of these local committees in another monograph. 

The remaining correspondence of the Virginia committee, 
the letters received by it in 1774, can be treated briefly. 
On March 1 the speaker of the New York Assembly notified 
Peyton Randolph that on January 20, 1774, a committee of 
correspondence had been chosen by that body; 38 and on 
March 14 the committee of New Jersey notified Virginia 
of its appointment by a resolution of the New Jersey As- 
sembly of February 8. 39 The province of Pennsylvania was 

36 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. viii, pp. 52, 53. 

37 American Archives, 4th series, vol. i, pp. 686-688. 

38 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 143- 

39 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1 773-1776, pp. 144, 145 5 
Letter from Governor Franklin to the Earl of Dartmouth, in Ameri- 
can Archives, 4th series, vol. i, p. 318. 



FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 1 47 

so tardy in the appointment of its committee of correspond- 
ence that in a mass-meeting on May 20, 1774, the people of 
Philadelphia appointed a committee which carried on com- 
munication with the other colonies until the Assembly, at its 
next session, decided to utilize the standing committee of 
correspondence, to which was added the speaker, Joseph 
Galloway. 40 

The other letters deal chiefly with the subject of a gen- 
eral congress and show the leading part played by the inter- 
colonial committees of correspondence in the creation of that 
body. As has been already shown, the Virginia committee 
had made the suggestion in the circular letter of May 28. 
On the second Monday in June, 1774, the General Assembly 
of Rhode Island appointed delegates to meet the representa- 
tives of the other colonies in a general congress, " at such 
Time and place as shall be agreed upon by the major part of 
the Committee appointed or to be appointed by the Colo- 
nies in general." 41 Massachusetts took more definite ac- 
tion, however, for on June 17 the House of Representatives 
appointed a " Committee on the part of this Province . . . 
to meet such Committees or Delegates from the other Colo- 
nies, as have been or may be appointed, either by their re- 
spective Houses of Burgesses, or Representatives, or by Con- 
vention or by the Committees of Correspondence, appointed 
by the respective Houses of Assembly," and suggested Phil- 
adelphia and September 1, 1774, as the place and time for 
holding the congress. 42 

The first Continental Congress was the creation of the 
intercolonial committees of correspondence, their efforts 
having made its calling possible. In all of their proceed- 
ings they had acted as the representatives of the popular 
bodies by which they had been appointed, and in the recess 
between the sessions of the assemblies they had acted for 
these bodies. It was through their work that the proroga- 

40 T. F. Gordon, History of Pennsylvania, p. 483. 

41 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, p. 153- 

42 Ibid., pp. 156, 157; American Archives, 4th series, vol. i, pp. 
421-423. 



I48 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

tions and dissolutions of the royal governors were nullified 
and the representatives of the people were allowed to voice 
the wishes of their constituencies. 

In the resolutions appointing the delegates to the first Con- 
tinental Congress the very language, in several cases, shows 
that the Congress was looked upon as a meeting of the com- 
mittees of correspondence. 43 An examination of the per- 
sonnel of the Congress of 1774 shows that a majority of its 
members were members of the committees of correspond- 
ence. 44 As these committees, which had created the Con- 
gress, had acted for the various legislatures, they conferred 
a representative character on that body. This representa- 
tive character was made more and more prominent as the 
respective colonial legislatures ratified the action of the Con- 
gress and the part taken by the committees of correspond- 
ence in its creation. 

With the convening of the Continental Congress the great 
work of the intercolonial committees had been accomplished, 
and most of their activities were soon lost in the central 
body which they had created. By 1775 another committee, 
the committee or council of safety, began to appear as the 
executive power in the colonies during the interregnum be- 
tween the breakdown of the royal government and the rise 
of the state government. This committee of safety replaced 
the committee of correspondence almost completely, absorb- 
ing its remaining functions and in many cases its member- 
ship. The transition from the Virginia committee of cor- 
respondence to the Virginia committee of safety I shall treat 
in another monograph. 

43 Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1773-1776, pp. 153, 156, 159. 

44 See credentials of the delegates to the Congress of 1774, in 
W. C. Ford, Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. i, pp. 15-30. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 

1. Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. : 

a. Bancroft Transcripts in Manuscripts Division, Virginia 
Official Correspondence, State Papers Colonial, Virginia, vols. 
193 and 194, Correspondence of the Governors. 

2. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia: 

a. Proceedings of the Committee of Correspondence, 1759- 
1770. 

b. Journal of the Committee of Safety, September 18, 1775, 
to May 7, 1776. 

c. Committee of Correspondence Papers, 1773-1776. 

3. Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia : 

a. Manuscript History of Virginia by Edmund Randolph. 

CONTEMPORARY NEWSPAPERS 

Incomplete files of the Virginia Gazette, in Virginia State Library 
and Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, Virginia. 

PRINTED RECORDS 

1. Proceedings of the First Assembly of Virginia, 1619. Tran- 

script' from the British State Paper Office. Collections of 
the New York Historical Society, second series, volume iii. 

2. Hening, W. W. The Statutes-at-Large ; being a Collection of 

all the Laws of Virginia. 13 vols. Richmond, 1809. 

3. Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1695-1776. 11 vols. Rich- 

mond, 1905-1913. The introductions of the volumes edited 
by H. R. Mcllwaine are valuable. 

4. The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie. 2 vols. Collections 

of the Virginia Historical Society, vols, iii, iv. 

5. The Colonial Records of North Carolina. Collected and edited 

by W. L. Saunders. 10 vols. Raleigh, 1886-1890. 

6. The Laws of North Carolina, State Records of North Carolina. 

Edited by W. Clark. 19 vols. Raleigh, 1895. 

7. The Statutes-at-Large of South Carolina. Edited by T. Cooper 

and D. J. McCord. 10 vols. Columbia, 1836-1841. 

8. The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia. Edited by A. 

D. Candler. 22 vols. Atlanta, 1904-1913. Volume xv con- 
tains the Journal of the Commons House of Assembly. 

9. Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New 

York. Edited by E. B. O'Callaghan and B. Fernow. 15 
vols. Albany, 1853-1887. 

10. Archives of the State of New Jersey. Compiled by William A. 

Whitehead and others. 18 vols. Trenton, 1880-1895. 

11. New Hampshire, Provincial and State Papers. Collected and 

edited by N. Bont'on. 7 vols. Concord, 1867-1877. 

149 



150 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

12. Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Planta- 

tions, in New England. Edited by J. R. Bartlett. 10 vols. 
Providence, 1856-1865. 

13. The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of 

the Massachusetts Bay. Compiled by A. C. Goodell and M. 
M. Bigelow. 18 vols. Boston, 1869-1912. 

14. The Official Letters of Alexander Spotswood. Collections of 

the Virginia Historical Society, vols, i, ii. 

15. Proceedings of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence, 

1759-1770. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 
vols, ix-xii passim. 

16. Statutes-at-Large of England and Great Britain. 109 vols. 

London, 1762-1869. 

17. Rushworth, J. Historical Collections of Private Passages of 

State. ... 8 vols. London, 1721-1722. 

18. Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 9 vols., Richmond, 1881-1800, 

vol. viii. In this volume are printed valuable records of the 
Virginia committee of correspondence and of the Virginia 
committee of safety. 

19. Niles, H. Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America. 

Baltimore, 1822. This work contains the Journal of the 
Stamp Act Congress. A copy of this Journal is printed in 
Niles' Register, July 25, 1812. 

20. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited by W. 

C. Ford. Washington, 1904 . 

21. Force, P. The American Archives, fourth series, vols, i-vi, fifth 

series, vols, i-iii. The publication of this collection was never 
completed. Much of the source material used in this study 
has been found in the six volumes of the fourth series, which 
contain valuable records of the Virginia committees and con- 
ventions. 

22. The minutes and correspondence of the Virginia committee of 

correspondence of 1773 are printed in the Journals of the 
House of Burgesses, 1773 to 1776. They may also be found 
in volume viii of the Calendar of Virginia State Papers. The 
original records are in the Virginia State Library. 

23. Cowper's Reports. 

WRITINGS OF STATESMEN 

1. The Works of John Adams. By C. F. Adams. 10 vols. Bos- 

ton, 1850-1856. 

2. The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Collected and edited by 

A. H. Smyth. 10 vols. New York, 1905-1907. 

3. The Works of Benjamin Franklin. By Jared Sparks. 10 vols. 

Boston, 1836-1840. 

4. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. Edited by 

H. P. Johnston. 4 vols. New York, 1890-1893. 

5. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Collected and edited by 

P. L. Ford. 10 vols. New York, 1892-1899. 

6. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. Collected and edited by J. 

C. Ballagh. 2 vols. New York, 191 1, 1914. 

7. Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and Speeches. ByW. W. 

Henry. 3 vols. New York, 1891. 

8. [Letter from Richard Bland] Virginia Magazine of History 

and Biography, vol. vi, pp. 127-134. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY I 5 I 

CONTEMPORARY HISTORIES 

1. Burk, J. The History of Virginia. 3 vols. Petersburg, Va., 

1804-1805. Continued in a fourth volume (1775-1781) by S. 
Jones and L. H. Girardin. Petersburg, 1816. This fourth 
volume contains important documentary material. 

2. Gordon, W. The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establish- 

ment of the Independence of the United States of America. 
4 vols. London, 1788. 

3. Hutchinson, T. History of Massachusetts. 3 vols. London, 

1755. 1768, 1828. The third volume deals with the Revolu- 
tion and the period just preceding it. This history is a con- 
temporaneous account, from the British point of view, of 
events in which the author figured. 

4. Randolph, E. Manuscript History of Virginia. This is a val- 

uable contemporary narrative. 

BIOGRAPHIES 

1. Henry, W. W. Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and 

Speeches. 3 vols. New York, 1891. This is a valuable work 
based on well utilized sources. 

2. Wells, W. V. The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams. 

3 vols. Boston, 1865. 

3. Wirt, W. Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. 

Philadelphia, 1818. 

GENERAL SECONDARY WORKS 

1. Bancroft, G. History of the United States of America. 6 vols. 

New York, 1883-1885. 

2. Campbell, C. History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of 

Virginia. Philadelphia, i860. 

3. Gordon, T. F. The History of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 

1829. 

MONOGRAPHS AND ARTICLES 

1. Collins, E. D. Committees of Correspondence of the American 

Revolution. Annual Report of the American Historical As- 
sociation, 1 901, vol. i, p. 243. 

2. Grigsby, H. B. The Virginia Convention of 1776. Richmond, 

i8S5- 

3. Hunt, A. The Provincial Committees of Safety of the Ameri- 

can Revolution. Cleveland, 1904. 

4. Jameson, J. F. The Origin of the Standing-Committee System 

in American Legislative Bodies. Political Science Quarterly, 
vol. ix, p. 247. 

5. Mcllwaine, H. R. Introduction to the Journals of the Virginia 

House of Burgesses. 

6. McKinley, A. E. The Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen Eng- 

lish Colonies in America. Publications of the University of 
Pennsylvania. Series in History, no. 2. 

7. Miller, E. I. The Virginia Committee of Correspondence, 1759- 

1770. William and Mary College Quarterly, vol. xxii, p. I. 



152 THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE SYSTEM 

8. , . The Virginia Committee of Correspondence of 

1773-1775. William and Mary College Quarterly, vol. xxii, 
p. 99. 

9. Ripley, W. Z. The Financial History of Virginia, 1609-1776. 

Studies in History. . . . Columbia College, vol. iv, no. I. 

10. Smith, W. R. South Carolina as a Royal Province, 1719-1776. 

New York, 1903. 

11. Tanner, E. P. Colonial Agencies in England during the Eight- 

eenth Century. Political Science Quarterly, vol. xvi, p. 24. 

12. Tyler, L. G. Virginians voting in the Colonial Period. William 

and Mary College Quarterly, vol. vi, p. 7. 



NDEX 



Abercrombie, James, 61, 89 (and 
note), 95, 101, 102, 106, 107, 
108. 

Acrill, William, 41, 42. 

Adams, Samuel, 70, 76. 

Agency, colonial: Virginia, 59- 
62, 70, 97, 106, 126, 127 ; North 
Carolina, 62-63 ; South Caro- 
lina, 62-63; Georgia, 63, 64; 
New York, 64-66; New Jer- 
sey, 66; Pennsylvania, 66-67; 
New Hampshire, 67-68; Mas- 
sachusetts, 69. 

Agent's Act of 1759, 89, 97. 

Agents, cooperation of, to se- 
cure repeal of Stamp Act, 112, 
123. 

Albemarle County, 23. 

Allen, Edward, 41. 

Amelia County, 123. 

Arlington grants, 59 (and note). 

Ashe, John, 141. 

Bacon's Laws, 80, 81. 

Ball, James, 41. 

Bancroft, George, 12 (note). 

Barnwell, John, 63. 

Barradall, Edward, 41, 42. 

Beale, Josias, 140. 

Beresford, Richard, 63. 

Beverley, William, 41, 42. 

Beverly, Peter, 20. 

Bishop, Samuel, 139. 

Blair, John, 41, 50, 124. 

Bland, Richard, 52, 53, 54, 73, 

74, 84, 90, 100, 101 (and note), 

116, 121, 122, 130 (note), 134. 
Board of Trade, 49, 64, 92, 93, 

94, 97, 116. 
Boston Port Bill, 136, 144. 
Botetourt, Baron de, governor 

of Virginia, 119, 120, 125, 128- 

129, 130. 
Boush, Samuel, 41. 
Bowdoin, Peter, 41. 
Bowers, Jerethmeel, 139. 



Bowler, Metcalf, 138. 
Boyd, Edward, 140. 
Bradford, William, 138. 
Bristol merchants' petition, 119. 
Brown, Moses, 138. 
Brunswick County, 23. 
Buckner, John, 41. 
Burk, John, 116. 
Burwell, Lewis, 41. 
Butts, Thomas, 28-31. 

Camm, John, 93, 94, 130. 
Carr, Dabney, 74, 85, 134, 135- 
Carrington, Paul, 116. 
Carter, Charles, 42, 73, 90. 
Carter, Landon, 73, 90. 
Cary, Archibald, 52, 53, 54, 74, 

85, 134. 

Caswell, Richard, 62 (note), 141. 

Chamante, John, 64. 

Chamberlaine, J. B., 140. 

Charles City County, 21. 

Charlotte County, 116. 

Chase, Samuel, 140. 

Cherokee Indians, congress of, 
119. 

Chesterfield County, 123. 

Claiborne, Leonard, 41. 

Clayton, John, 30, 32. 

Clerks of standing committees, 
50. 

Cole, John, 138. 

Cole, William, 34. 

Collins, E. D., opinion on origin 
of committees of correspond- 
ence, 88 ; criticism of his views, 
91. 

Colonial law, force of, 104. 

Committee for courts of justice, 
25, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 
54, 74- 

Committee for religion, 53, 54, 

74- 
Committee for trade, 42, 43, 44, 

47, 50, 52, 54, 74- 



153 



154 



INDEX 



Committee of correspondence, 
Virginia, 60, 61 ; act appoint- 
ing, 70, 71 ; tenure of com- 
mittee, 71 ; relationship be- 
tween committee and House 
of Burgesses, 72, 108; per- 
sonnel of committees of 1759 
and 1773, 72-73; appointment 
of committee of 1773, 85, 134; 
functions of committee for 
corresponding with agent, 87, 
88; composition of committee, 
9 2 , 93; proceedings and corre- 
spondence, 97-115, 138-148; 
letters to committees of other 
colonies, 145 ; letters from 
Massachusetts, Maryland, and 
Pennsylvania, 145 ; select com- 
mittee of correspondence, 136, 

137, .143. 

Committee of Correspondence. 
See Connecticut, Delaware, etc. 

Committee of privileges and 
elections, 16, 17, 29, 32, 34, 35, 
36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 
50, 51, 52, 53, 54,. 74- 

Committee of privileges and re- 
turns, 16, 17. 

Committee of propositions and 
grievances, 16, 17, 18, 33, 35, 
36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 
SO, 52, 53, 54, 73, 74- 

Committee of public claims, 16, 
17, 18, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 
43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 74. 

Committee of the whole House, 
19, 122; procedure in commit- 
tee of whole, 20. 

Committee to inspect expiring 
laws, 24; for revising laws, 14, 
18 ; for private causes, 14, 15 ; 
for review and regulation of 
acts, 15; of audit, 15; joint 
recess, of Council and Bur- 
gesses, 15; of elections, 15; to 
inspect treasurer's account, 16, 
18; to notify governor, 18; to 
inquire into the practice and 
behavior of the attorney-gen- 
eral, 19; for conference, 19; 
special committees, 43, 44. 

Committees, English legislative, 
11, 15, 54-56. 

Committees, local revolutionary, 
in Massachusetts, 57. 



Committees of Correspondence, 
cooperation of, 113; compari- 
son of, 90-91. 

Committees of observation, 146. 

Congress, Continental, 147, 148. 

Congress, Stamp Act, 94, 96. 

Connecticut, 136, 137; commit- 
tee of correspondence of, 138- 
139; select committee of cor- 
respondence of, 142-143. 

Cooper, Dr., 130. 

Corbin, Gawin, 29, 41. 

Creditors, act for relief of, 104- 
105. 

Cruger, John, 141. 

Culpepper grants, 59. 

Cushing, Thomas, 70, 139. 

Deane, Silas, 139. 

Debtors, act for relief of insol- 
vent, 107. 

Declaration of Independence and 
the Virginia delegates, 77. 

Delaware, 137 ; committee of cor- 
respondence, 141. 

Derby, Richard, jr., 139. 

DeRosset, L. H., 62 (note). 

Digges, Dudley, 54, 73, 74, 85, 
134, 136. 

Diggs, Cole, 34. 

Dinwiddie, Robert, governor of 
Virginia, 47, 49, 50, 60, 78 
(note), 89, 95. 

Dinwiddie County, 123. 

Dunmore, Earl of, governor of 
Virginia, 77, 78, 120, 130, 131, 
132, 133, 135, 144- 

Election laws of Virginia, 80, 81, 

82, 106. 
Elliott, Grey, agent for Georgia, 

64. 

English papers, publication of 
colonial grievances, 130. 

Episcopate, question of estab- 
lishment of an American, 130. 

Fairfax County, 23. 

Fast day on hearing of Boston 
Port Bill, 144. 

Fauquier, Francis, governor of 
Virginia, 50, 52, 94, 95, 96, 98, 
116, 117, 120, 124. 

Fine for failure to elect' bur- 
gesses, 22. 



INDEX 



155 



Fitzhugh, Henry, 41, 42. 

Forgery of paper currency, 137. 

Foster, Jedediah, 139. 

Franklin, Benjamin, agent for 
Georgia, 63-64; for New Jer- 
sey, 66; for Massachusetts, 70. 

French and Indians, expeditions 
against, 46, 47; depredations 
of, 49; expenditures for ex- 
peditions, 99. 

Galloway, Joseph, 142. 

Gardner, Thomas, 139. 

Gaspee affair, 136 (note), 137, 
138. 

General Assembly, Virginia, com- 
position of, 79, 80. 

Georgia, committee of corre- 
spondence, 63, 64, 140. 

Gerry, Elbridge, 139. 

Giddings, John, 139. 

Gooch, William, governor of 
Virginia, 37. 

Greenleaf, Jonathan, 139. 

Grymes, Philip, 89. 

Hammond, Matthias, 140. 
Hancock, John, 77, 139. 
Hanover County, 93. 
Harmanson, Matthew, 41. 
Harnett, Cornelius, 141. 
Harrison, Benjamin, 41, 42, 52, 

53, 54 74, 85, 134. 141, 142. 
Harvey, John, 62 (note), 141. 
Hawley, Joseph, 139. 
Hay, Anthony, 127. 
Haynes, Thomas, 41. 
Heath, William, 139. 
Henrico County, 23, 123. 
Henry, Patrick, 23, 24, 74, 76, 84, 

85, 94, 109 (note), 115, 116, 117, 

120, 121, 122, 134, 135, 136, 144. 
Hewes, Joseph, 141. 
Hillsborough, Earl of, 127. 
Hooper, William, 141. 
Hopkins, Stephen, 138. 
House of Burgesses, Virginia, 1, 

2, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 

29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 40, 49, 123, 
131 ; representative character 
of, 79, 80; legislative training 
in, 84; leadership in, 121. 

Howe, Robert, 62 (note), 141. 

Hutchinson, Thomas, governor 
of Massachusetts, 70. 



Isle of Wight County, 21. 

James City County, 21. 
Jameson, J. F., 12 (note), 16 

(note), 55. 56, 83. 
Jamestown, 12, 21, 22, 23, 82. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 54 74, 84, 85, 

109 (note), 115, 117, 120, 134, 

135, 144- 
Johnson, Thomas, 140. 
Johnston, George, 116. 
Johnston, Samuel, 141. 
Jones, Joseph, 54. 
Jones, Marmaduke, 62 (note). 
Justices, proceedings against, for 

contempt, 28, 31. 

Keeling, George, 28. 
King George County, 22. 
Knox, William, 63. 

Lee, F. L., 135, 144. 

Lee, Richard, 54. 

Lee, Richard Henry, 53, 54, 74, 

77, 84, 85, 121, 122, 134, 135, 

136 (note), 144. 
Leonard, Daniel, 139. 
Littlepage, Richard, 28, 29, 30, 31. 
Lloyd, John, 62. 
London merchants, petition of, 

119. 
Louisa County, 134. 
Ludwell, Thomas, 59, 60. 

McCarty, Daniel, 41. 

McCulloch, H. E., agent for 
North Carolina, 62. 

Mcllwaine, H. R., 25 (note), 30, 
34, 50. 

McKean, Dr., 130. 

McKean, Thomas, 141. 

McKinley, A. E., 83, 84. 

McKinley, John, 141. 

Martin's patent, 13. 

Maryland, 105 ; committee of 
correspondence, 140. 

Massachusetts, 136, 137; com- 
mittee of correspondence, 70, 
!39, T 43 5 local committees, 57, 
139; early attitude on Stamp 
Act, 118; speaker, 123, 124. 

Memorials to king and Parlia- 
ment, in, 112, 113. 

Merchant, Henry, 138. 

Mifflin, Thomas, 67 (note). 



i 5 6 



INDEX 



Miles, Samuel, 67 (note). 

Mississippi, act for encourage- 
ment of settlers on the, 47-48. 

Montague, Edward, agent for 
Virginia, 60, 61, 89, 93, ioi, 
102, 106, 108, 109, ill, 118, 119, 
122, 123. 

Moore, James, 62 (note). 

Morrison, Francis, 15. 

Morryson, Francis, 60. 

Morton, John, 67 (note). 

Nelson, Thomas, Jr., 54, 89. 
Nelson, William, 89, 129, 130, 144. 
New Hampshire, 137; commit- 
tee of correspondence, 67, 68, 

139- 

New Jersey, 137, 143 ; committee 
of correspondence, 66, 143, 
146. 

New Kent County, 22; proposi- 
tions and grievances from, 27 ; 
justices, 28, 31, 33, 40. 

New York, 136, 137, H3; com- 
mittee of correspondence, 64, 
65, 66, 146. 

Nicholas, Robert Carter, 53, 54, 

73, 85, 90, 105, 109, 114 134, 

136"- 
Norfolk, 23. 
Norfolk County, 23, 24. 
North Carolina, committee of 

correspondence, 62 (note), 141. 
Norton, John, 61, 137, 141. 

Oliver, Andrew, 118. 

Otis, James, 70, 94, 117, 118. 

Paca, William, 140. 

Paper currency, 100, 107, 137. 

Paris, F. J., 66. 

Parke, Daniel, 59, 60. 

Parker, William, 67, 139. 

Parliament, legislation in colo- 
nial affairs, 92; appropriations 
for war expenses, 101, 105. 

Parsons, S. H., 139. 

Parson's Cause, 49, 93. 

Payne, Benjamin, 139. 

Pearson, I., 67 (note). 

Pendleton, Edmund, 52, 53, 54, 

74, 76, 85, 116, 121, 122, 134, 
136. 

Pennsylvania, 108, 142, 143, 147; 
committee of correspondence, 
67, 147. 



Petitions, from Chesterfield, Din- 
widdie, Henrico, Amelia, 
Prince William, and West- 
moreland counties, 123. 

Philadelphia, appoints commit- 
tee of correspondence, 147. 

Phillips, William, 139. 

Pickering, John, 139. 

Pistole fee, 89. 

Pittsylvania County, 136. 

Popple, William, 64. 

Pory, John, 12 (and note), 13. 

Pounds, John, 59. 

Prerogative party, 118. 

Prescott, James, 139. 

Price, Thomas, 41. 

Prince William County, 123 
(and note). 

Propositions and grievances, cer- 
tification of, 26, 27, 39, 40; 
law regulating, 27 ; procedure 
on, in Assembly, 28. See also 
Committee of propositions and 
grievances. 

Public claims, certification of, 
26, 27, 39, 40; law regulating, 
27; procedure on, in Assem- 
bly, 28. See also Committee 
on public claims. 

Raleigh Tavern (Williamsburg, 
Virginia), 135, U5- 

Randolph, Edmund, 109 (note). 

Randolph, Henry, 15. 

Randolph, John, 41. 

Randolph, Peter, 89, 116. 

Randolph, Peyton, 41, 52, 73, 85, 
90, 105, 114, 116, 121, 127, 134, 
135, 136, 139, 141, 145, 146. 

Read, George, 141. 

Representation, in England, 26; 
in Virginia, 26. 

Resolutions, appointing the com- 
mittee of 1773, 134; for fast 
day, 144; Stamp Act, 23, 65, 

115- 

Rhode Island, 136, 137, 138; com- 
mittee of correspondence, 68, 
138. 

Richmond County, 27. 

Robinson, John, 41, 42, 73, 90, 
121. 

Robinson, Thomas, 141. 

Rodman, William, 67 (note). 

Rodney, Caesar, 141. 



INDEX 



>57 



Salt, importation of, 107. 

Scarburg, Henry, 41. 

Select committee of correspond- 
ence, 136, 137, 143. 

Seniority in committees, 40-42. 

Sheafe, Jacob, 139. 

Sherburne, John, 67, 130. 

Silliman, Ebenezer, 139. 

Sim, Joseph, 140. 

Smith, Robert, 60. 

South Carolina. 137 ; committee 
of correspondence, 62, 139, 140. 

Speaker of Virginia House of 
Burgesses writes to other 
speakers, 124, 128. 

Speakership and treasurership 
separated, 121. 

Spottswood, Alexander, gover- 
nor of Virginia, 25, 26; dis- 
putes with legislature, 25, 26, 
30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 60. 

Stamp Act, resolutions on, 23, 
115; Stamp Act Congress, 94, 
96; New York represented at 
the Stamp Act Congress by 
it's committee of correspond- 
ence, 65; opinion of Virginia 
committee on Stamp Act, 109- 
iii ; Jefferson's statement, 116, 
117; effect of its repeal, 122. 

Standing committees in British 
House of Commons, 54, 55, 56. 

Standing legislative committees, 
development in America, 56; 
comparison with British com- 
mittees, 57, 58; period of de- 
velopment in House of Bur- 
gesses, 58. 

" Strays," law regulating, 107. 

Stuart, John, 119. 

Suffrage in the colonies, 82, 83, 
84. 

Sweny, Merit, 41. 

Tanner, E. P., 61. 

Tappan, Christopher, 139. 

Taxation, by Parliament, 96, 109, 
no; distinction between 
" right " and " power " of Par- 
liament in taxation, no; res- 
olutions on taxation in House 
of Burgesses, 125, 126; reso- 
lutions sent to other colonies, 
127, 128. 



Tazewell, John, 136. 

Tea, duty on, 142. 

Temporary legislation, 93, 102- 

104. 
Thomas, Brice, 140. 
Thornton et al. v. Buchanan and 

Hamilton, 104. 
Tilghman, Matthew, 140. 
Tories, 76. 
Trade between Great Britain 

and Virginia, 104, 105. 
Treasury notes, 100. 
Trumbull, Joseph, 139. 
Turner, Thomas, 41. 
Twine, John, 13. / 

" Two Penny Act," 48, 49, 93, 

99, 130. 
Tyler, Lyon G., 83. 

Vail, Edward, 141. 

Virginia Association, 127, 129, 

145- 

Virginia Convention, 145, 146. 
Virginia Gazette, 126. 

Walker, Alexander, 28, 29. 
Walker, Jacob, 40. 
Wallace, James, 40. 
Waller, Benjamin, 73, 90. 
Ward, Henry, 138. 
Waring, Thomas, 41, 42. 
Warren, James, 139. 
Warwick County, 23, 34. 
Wayles, Nathaniel, 139. 
Wentworth, John, 67, 139. 
Westmoreland County, 123. 
William and Mary College, 17 

(note), 22, 23, 115. 
Williams, William, 139. 
Williamsburg, 23, 44 (note), 

129, 137, 143. 
Wolcott, Erastus, 139. 
Woodson, John, 54. 
Worthington, Beale, 140. 
Writs of assistance, 94, 117. 
Wythe, George, 73, 84, 90, 105, 

109, 114, 116, 117, 121. 

Yeardley, George, governor of 

Virginia, II, 13. 
Yonge, Francis, 62. 
York Hampton Parish, 93. 



VITA 

James Miller Leake was born in Ashland, Virginia, Oc- 
tober i, 1879. He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts 
from Randolph-Macon College in 1902. From 1901 to 1903 
he was instructor in French and English in Randolph-Macon 
College, and from 1903 to 1908 he was engaged in business 
and in newspaper work. From 1909 to 191 1 he was prin- 
cipal of Ashland High School. In 191 1 he entered the 
Johns Hopkins University, taking graduate work in history, 
political science, and political economy. He was Fellow in 
History in 1913-1914, and received the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy in 1914. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0U367 059 4 



